Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEEDS CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 22nd February.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what plans he has to increase the staff of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The Minister of State, Department of Economic Affairs (Mr. Austen Albu): There has recently been a substantial increase in the Board's staff. My right hon. Friend will continue to keep the position under review.

Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman express the gratitude of the House to the members of the Board and their staff for the tremendous volume of work that they have endeavoured to cope with in pursuit of Government policy? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Board will not be in a position to be able to reject looking at claims like those of the gas workers or to fail to produce reports on time, as happened in the case of the

bakers' claim? Such things do a great deal of harm to Government policy.

Mr. Albu: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the members of the Board and the staff. We are aware of the need to get out reports as quickly as possible. That is one reason why we have increased the staff.

Annual Price Review

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer the 1966 Price Review to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): No, Sir. The machinery of the Annual Review allows for proper regard to be paid to the Government's policies on productivity, prices and incomes.

Mr. Walker: In view of the importance of the Review to the Government's prices and incomes policy, does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that an increase in farm incomes of 3½ per cent. is reasonable for the coming year?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman had better allow the Review to proceed.

Northern Region

Mr. Rhodes: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what estimate he has made of the further action necessary to stimulate the economic recovery of the northern region.

Mr. Albu: Under the new system of incentives which was announced last month, investment grants will be available at double the national rate throughout the whole of the northern region. This will provide a powerful stimulus to its economic recovery and will reinforce encouraging progress already made.

Mr. Rhodes: I thank my hon. Friend. Will he bear in mind that, in spite of the recovery of recent months, there are still underlying weaknesses in the northern economy which can be strengthened only by getting a major new expansive industry there, such as motor manufacturing?

Mr. Albu: I am aware of the problem. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that unemployment in the northern region was 2·8 per cent. in January, 1966, compared with 3·2 per cent. in January, 1965. That is a measure of the progress that is being made.

Local Authority Houses (Rent Increases)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer proposed rent increases by local authorities to the National Board of Prices and Incomes.

Dr. David Kerr: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will invite the National Board for Prices and Incomes to consider the inflationary effect of increases in rents for local authority housing.

Mr. Heller: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer the increase in Liverpool Corporation tenants' rents by approximately 10s a week to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: As I indicated in my reply of 25th November to the hon. Member for Portsmouth. Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), I do not propose to make a reference.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that rent is a considerable part of a person's income? Does he think that increases of about 20 or 25 per cent., announced by Wandsworth Borough Council yesterday, are reconcilable with the Government's policy?

Mr. Brown: This is a very difficult problem. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has told the House that he is considering a number of representations that have been made to him about it, but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wording of my Question was slightly different? I merely asked whether he will invite the Board to consider the matter. Would not he agree that the reference of these local authority matters to the Board would be quite improper?

Would he further bear in mind the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)—that these are very heavy increases which make an enormous impact on the lower income groups?

Mr. Brown: I agree fully with my hon. Friend. Of course I am aware that this is a genuine problem. But, as I have said, the Government think that it should be dealt with in a different way and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is now considering it.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to ask industrial workers in areas such as Merseyside to keep their wage claims down to the 3½ per cent. norm if, at the same time, they are being asked to pay perhaps 10s. per week more in rent? Do not such things operate against the prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Brown: All of these things have to be taken together, for they are related. As I have said repeatedly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is considering what can be done about this aspect, which we believe is better dealt with in a different way. I hope my hon. Friend will put out of his mind that anyone is asking the workers of Merseyside to keep claims down to the 3½ per cent. norm. We are asking all workers, wage and salary earners, and everybody else in the country to recognise that the totality of increase in everyone's incomes must be within 3½ per cent.

Waste Paper

Mr. Longden: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what report he has received from the Working Party of the British Paper and Board Makers' Association on future supplies of waste paper; and what action he proposes to take to maintain and increase such supplies.

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend has recently received the Report of this Working Party, which was set up by the Economic Development Committee for the Paper and Board Industry.
The Report, which will be issued, makes a number of valuable recommendations for action both by the industry


and by Government. The Chairman of the Economic Development Committee has been told that the Government accepts the Report's recommendations.

Mr. Longden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that the incentives of an assured market and an adequate return on ratepayers' capital investments are absolutely essential if the local authorities are to play their part in maintaining these supplies?

Mr. Albu: Those are very important considerations which will be taken into account by the local authorities when considering the Working Party's Report.

Fairfields Shipyard (Working Practices)

Mr. McMaster: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what agreement has been reached with the trade unions involved on the subject of demarcation and transferability of skilled labour as a condition of the Government's agreement to assist Fairfields; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I am pleased to report that all concerned in the shipyard have readily accepted the objective of more flexible working practices and greater interchangeability of workers, and a number of useful talks to this end have already taken place between the management and union officials. Negotiating procedures are now being drawn up, but it will obviously take some time to carry through the necessary changes.

Mr. McMaster: Has a firm agreement been reached with these workers to get rid of demarcation? If so, what price is being paid to them in the form of increased wages and what effect will this have on other yards?

Mr. Brown: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman prepared that supplementary question before he heard my Answer. If he will be good enough to read the Answer, he will see that it deals with that.

Mr. Barber: The right hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the whole basis of the original proposals which he put before the House was that the injection of public money would be dependent on firm undertakings

by the unions and not on mere acceptance of objectives which have not yet been worked out.

Mr. Brown: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman shows an astonishing ignorance of these things. Before firm agreement can be made, there has to be agreement on firm objectives. Having got that, one then proceeds to work out arrangements, which is exactly what I said we were doing.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the employees at Fairfields at all levels are co-operating exceptionally well with the management and that things are now proceeding in an excellent fashion and that nothing hon. Members opposite can do will stop that?

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the First Secretary aware that if the workers in the Fairfields Yard had been offered shares directly in the company it might have had more effect on co-operation than the unions putting in money?

Mr. Brown: That seems to be a different question. The important thing at this stage is to get a change in attitudes and practices in the yard required both in that yard and as a lead for the rest of this vital industry. It is that which we are doing at the moment.

Food Prices

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes recent increases in food prices, especially the increasing practice of concealing price increases by reducing pack sizes.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir. Recent reports of increases in food prices have been greatly exaggerated and I see no need for a reference at the present time.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend explain what steps his or any other Department takes to ascertain the extent of the practice of perhaps keeping prices steady, but reducing the size of the pack or whatever it might be? Is that taken into account when the cost-of-living or retail price index is formulated?

Mr. Brown: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who asked a similar question a


little while ago, we have done our best to make very close checks through the Departments responsible, in this case the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we have used information which we can get in other ways. I have no information which leads me to believe that at the moment this is a serious or widespread practice. Indeed, in some recent cases price reductions have been made by increasing the size of packs. The point in all these things, as Lord Sainsbury said on television the other night, is that one has to balance the ups and downs and not concentrate on one or the other.

Mr. William Clark: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that industry generally has played the game in absorbing increased costs by maintaining prices or reducing them, and is not this rather one-sided, as wages have gone up 8 or 9 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: No, wages have not gone up. Like so many of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman mixes up earnings and wages. One wants earnings to go up. How is one otherwise to get people to work harder and produce more? One has to examine why earnings have gone up and whether increases reflect increased productivity. To a large extent, both sides have played the game and if right hon. Gentlemen opposite would concentrate a little less on trying to prove that they have not, we might get more success with those who are not playing the game.

Building Material Companies (Profits and Dividends)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the profits and dividends of those companies engaged in the production of building materials.

Mr. George Brown: Not on present information. But if my hon. Friend will send me details of any particular case he has in mind I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say why he objects? All the references to the Board so far have been concerned solely with prices and wages.

When will he refer some profits and dividends? Otherwise, there will not be very much prospect of the policy working.

Mr. Brown: For once, my hon. Friend has not done his homework. The last reference which I made was wholly concerned with prices, profits and costs, in this case, appropriately, of the brewery industry.

Mr. Hamilton: Cheers.

Manufacturers (Direct Sales to Retailers)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what machinery he has with regard to increases in price of goods sold direct from manufacturers to retailers; and if he will refer such recent increases in the furniture trade to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: Any price increase may be referred for investigation by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I am not convinced at present that prices in the furniture trade should be referred to the Board.

Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the usual practice of furniture manufacturers at the beginning of every year to recommend new prices at which goods should be sold in shops and that some of those items are increased this year by as much as £5 on an item of furniture costing £25, which is quite large? Will he look at this matter again?

Mr. Brown: We had a close look at it, but I am quite willing to look at it again. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send to me the sort of evidence which she has in mind and to which she has ready access. I am quite willing to consider it.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that much the best weapon to attack this kind of price increase was the ending of resale price maintenance?

Mr. Brown: It has not yet ended in this industry. It will be rather interesting to see what happens when it does.

Rates

Mr. Box: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will refer the proposed


increases in local authority rates over the 3½ per cent. norm to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 25th November, 1965.

Mr. Box: Is not that reply in direct contradiction to the Government's Prices and Incomes Policy White Paper, page 9, paragraph 16, lines 5, 6 and 7, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fear and trepidation which millions of ratepayers throughout the country feel as they face rises of between 10 and 20 per cent in their rates as a result of the Government's policy? Will he reconsider?

Mr. Brown: Increases in the rate burden are not a novel thing which happen under the present Government. What is novel under the present Government is that we are now taking steps to deal with it by the legislation now before the House.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Does not the First Secretary realise that what he has said is not an answer to my hon. Friend? In his own White Paper he makes a specific reference, which has been quoted, to the incomes of local authorities. In view of that, why does he not refer these rises, which cause so much anxiety to so many millions of householders, to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Brown: Because we have decided to deal with it by way of legislation which is already before the House, and further legislation which will be coming before the House very shortly.

Mr. Box: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

British Railways (Pay Claim)

Mr. Marten: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the pay claim of the railwaymen, following the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Park: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the report of the National Board

for Prices and Incomes concerning railwaymen's pay.

Mr. Brown: As the Answer is inevitably a trifle long, it may be for the convenience of the House if I am allowed to give it at the end of Questions.

Water Rates

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer the recent price increase of water rates, in some cases by 50 per cent., to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) on 3rd February.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the First Secretary said last week that he was so good at riding his tandem with the Chancellor, will he now back-pedal and remove this iniquitous tax, which is falling upon those least able to bear it? Who is driving this tandem?

Mr. Brown: Whoever is driving, if the other one were to back-pedal that would be a horrible way of going forward.

Nationalised Industries (Pay Negotiations)

Mr. Palmer: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in view of the prices and incomes policy of the Government, what principles are now followed by Her Majesty's Government, in consultation with the nationalised industries, regarding normal wages and salaries negotiations in front of the negotiating machinery established under the various nationalisation statutes and to which both nationalised boards and trade unions are parties.

Mr. George Brown: In accordance with the principles laid down in the White Paper on the "Early Warning" system (Command 2808), the nationalised industries are providing the Government with information on pay claims, the progress of negotiations, and the terms of settlements.

Mr. Palmer: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not the intention of the Government or the policy of the Prices and Incomes Board to interfere


with the normal day-to-day process of collective bargaining, and that the nationalised industries are in the same position as everyone else?

Mr. Brown: The nationalised industries are in the same position as everyone else, and all the normal processes of collective bargaining will, I hope, be in accord with the criterion laid down in the White Paper.

Soap and Detergents

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is satisfied with the results of the action taken by the soap and detergent manufacturers on the recommendations made to the industry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend welcomed the action of the principal manufacturers last October in accepting the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that prices of soap products and synthetic powders should not be increased before the end of 1966. He hopes they will go even further and make price reductions wherever possible. He has left the manufacturers in no doubt of his view that a reduction in advertising and promotional expenditure could help to make such reductions possible.

Mr. Evans: Is not this a good example of the groundwork that can be done by the Prices and Incomes Board? Would the Board consider inviting the industry to report on all the many recommendations in this Report?

Mr. Albu: We are certainly sorry that the manufacturers have not seen fit to carry out all the recommendations. We have made it very clear to them that we wish them to do so.

Nationalised Industries (Price Increases)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many increases in the prices of products of nationalised industries have been absorbed by the

industries; and how many have been handed on to the consumer.

Mr. George Brown: The nationalised industries gives us information in advance of all important prospective increases and where it has seemed desirable that the justification for specific proposals should be examined, we have not hesitated to refer them to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give me a specific assurance that there will be no further increases in the cost of products of the nationalised industries? In view of the statement that we are to have an increase in the price of coal and in view of the increase in the price of electricity on the North-East Coast, can we know that these are to be absorbed in future just as he is telling other industries to absorb increases?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady must not always rely on what she reads in newspapers.

South-West

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will hold a review of the priorities ac corded to the South-West in general, and Dorset in particular, by departments, in order to improve the priorities and thus meet the problems of this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Albu: No, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Did we not have an excellent example yesterday of Dorset's low priority when it was announced that the new fast reactor is to go to Scotland and not to Dorset, without any technical reasons being given for the preference of Scotland over Dorset?

Mr. Albu: Obviously, considerations of regional policy have to be considered within the framework of national policy. In this case national policy considerations dictated that the reactor should go to Scotland.

London Busmen (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he


will refer the wages structure and conditions of work of London Transport busmen to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: Pay and conditions of London were the subject of an official committee of inquiry, which reported in February, 1964. Negotiations on a new pay claim are due to begin shortly and we will be keeping in touch with the parties concerned.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not this failure to report the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board the final evidence of the failure of the Government to take their own prices and incomes policy seriously? Is it not clear to everyone—it must be clear even to the First Secretary—that the London Transport Board is about to make a hand-out to the busmen, together with a reduction in the services offered to the long-suffering London public—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. That is long enough.

Mr. Brown: That must have been the fiftieth occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has announced final evidence that the prices and incomes policy is not working. He is no better on this occasion than he was on the previous 49. What he said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I will answer only if hon. Gentlemen will listen. What the hon. Gentleman said cannot possibly be either accurate or relevant, because the new pay claim has not yet started.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Perhaps the First Secretary will return to the Question. Would he not agree that a useful purpose could be served if the restrictive practcies in the London Transport area, notably the refusal of the Transport and General Workers' Union to accept even so elementary a thing as work study, were referred to the Board? Does he not think that a confrontation between the Board and the Minister of Technology might be productive?

Mr. Brown: I do not really think that any part of that question arises on this Question.

Dairy Farmers, Scotland (Rents)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if, in view of the

substantial increase in rents charged to dairy farmers by landlords in Scotland which could result in an increase in costs, he will refer the increase to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Milk Marketing Board has recently published statistics about alarming increases of rent which have had to be paid by tenant farmers producing milk? Is he aware that this means that rents have gone up by 27s. an acre, £200 per farm and 1½ per gallon of milk? Does he not agree that if such rents send up the price of the gallon of milk this affects the cost of living? Should not he investigate this matter?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that not only do I know of what was said by the Chairman of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board but that I have read what was said. There are many other considerations to be taken into account, and in any case changes in rents are one of the considerations discussed during the course of the Annual Farm Price Review.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Incomes Policy

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the light of the 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. rise in earnings in 1965, what changes he proposes to make in his incomes policy.

Mr. George Brown: I propose to develop and strengthen the agreed policy, and press on with the job of getting it fully understood and implemented. I invite the hon. Gentleman's support.

Mr. Mills: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what increases in earnings over the last year are due to increases in productivity and would he say when the Bill on the early warning system, the publication of which has been postponed on three occasions, is to come before the House? May we have a date please?

Mr. Brown: No postponement has yet occurred. I am not in a position to make a statement about the date. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I could not give him a breakdown without notice because I do not have the figures with me. We have carried out such an exercise and there are certain difficulties to it. I would be quite willing to see if I could answer the Question.

Mr. Peter Emery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answers to this Question and to Questions Nos. 16 and 18 are irrelevant to his attempt to obtain greater productivity, and are only relevant to the pegging of prices and wages, without greater productivity?

Mr. Brown: Clearly the hon. Gentleman believes that. I happen to think that he is wholly wrong. It is a matter of judgment between us.

Total National Profits, Wages and Salaries

Mr. Longden: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now particularise the means referred to in the National Plan which the Government may use to make sure that total national profits do not get out of step with wages and salaries.

Mr. Albu: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply he gave to the hon. Member on 25th November.

Mr. Longden: Is it the Government's policy to arrange that there shall be no profits, in which case an incomes policy will no longer be necessary because there will be no incomes?

Mr. Albu: I hardly think that that question deserves a reply. We have made it perfectly clear that we fully encourage the earnings of profits when they are earned by increased productivity, output and exports.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Onslow: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what proportion of the mathematicians, mechanical and other engineers, and physicists working in manufacturing industry were employed in the aircraft industry in 1965; and

where this proportion represents a decline on the 1962 figure, as recorded in the National Plan, what action his Department has taken to analyse the redeployment of the personnel concerned; and with what result.

Mr. Albu: Provisional figures for 1965 suggest that the aircraft industry employs a slightly lower proportion of the mathematicians, mechanical engineers and physicists working in manufacturing industry than it did in 1962. The Department of Economic Affairs is co-operating with the Ministry of Labour in a special study of recent redeployment of labour from the aircraft industry.

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that that reply will give the House some encouragement, but has the Minister any real grounds for expecting that he will be able to track down these men, particularly when they leave the country? Has he any grounds for saying that in 1968–69 the men who are needed in these categories will still be working in industry?

Mr. Albu: There are two answers to that. First of all, we must not exaggerate the number of people leaving the country, which is certainly not large in relation to the total number employed. Secondly, there is a very great need for men with this degree of skill in other branches of the engineering industry.

Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the study to which he referred will be completed and whether it will be published?

Mr. Albu: I cannot say at present.

Military Aircraft (Purchase from U.S.A.)

Mr. Onslow: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the calculations upon which the National Plan was based have been altered by the Government's commitment to the purchase of military aircraft from the United States of America.

Mr. Albu: Not at all, Sir.

Mr. Onslow: Does this mean that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend view with complete equanimity the possible further commitment to purchase the F111 aircraft from the United States?

Mr. Albu: That is purely a hypothetical question. It does not really arise out of the original Question.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Report of the consultants advising on the diversification of Short Brothers and Harland.

Mr. George Brown: Not at the moment, Sir.

Mr. Mills: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he received the report in December, and would he give us the exact date and explain the reasons for the delay? Would he also confirm that he stands by his pledge of 28th May last that Short Bros. and Harland would remain part of the aircraft industry?

Mr. Brown: I cannot find the exact date in December when I received the report, but I had it in December. There has been no delay. The real purpose is to do good for the people who work in this company and for the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is much more important that we take time over doing the job well than rush into publication.

Mr. Orme: When the discussions on Short Bros. take place, if it is not possible to go ahead with aircraft production, would my right hon. Friend consider setting up some publicly-owned science-based industries in this factory?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend may have misunderstood the situation. There is no question of Short Bros. not going ahead with aircraft production. Not only has that been said many times before, but it was said by the Minister of Aviation the other day in the debate on the Plowden Report. In addition, we want to arrange the best and most sensible diversification for this company. This is what the report is about, and this is what discussions are now going on about.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Aviation said only the other day in the House that in the next 12 months 4,000 men in Short Bros, may lose their jobs? Would he expedite the putting into effect of this Report?

Mr. Brown: We will bring about the arrangements which the Report recommends as soon as we can. We are busy at it now. We will also take every step to ensure that training, retraining and other facilities are available for anybody who has to move from this company. We are in touch with the Northern Ireland Government at this very moment on the subject.

Scottish Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Brewis: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why he has referred the salary scales, negotiated for Scottish teachers by the Scottish Joint Council, to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: The Board has been asked to consider whether the overall increase of 13 per cent. proposed by the Government puts Scottish teachers generally in a fair relationship with teachers in England and Wales.

Mr. Brewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on that? How far does he intend to correlate the salaries of English teachers and Scottish teachers in view of the wide difference in training qualifications? Will he give an assurance that he does not intend to do that?

Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State for Scotland retains his rights in the fixation of teachers' salaries in Scotland. The matter rests with him, and nobody is talking about disturbing his rights. On the other hand, it seemed to us as well as everybody else that there was something to be said for an independent body to look at the question to see whether the relationship was fair, and this seemed to be the right body to do it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is the 13 per cent. guaranteed already to teachers no matter what the Board says? Will the Board be able to recommend an additional 2 or 3 per cent., or whatever it may be?

Mr. Brown: The 13 per cent. is the fixation; it is fixed. When we receive the Board's report we will be able to consider the situation thereafter.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the


prices and incomes policy must surely take into account the desperate need for teachers and the fact that the breaking of the joint negotiating council's agreement will certainly ensure that there will not be enough teachers to allow the raising of the school leaving age in Scotland in 1970?

Mr. Brown: Those are not the terms of the reference. This is a general question about teachers anywhere in these islands. I think that hon. Members are missing the point of the reference. We think that we should make sure that Scottish teachers are in a fair relationship with their English and Welsh colleagues. I should have expected that to be welcomed by Scottish Members.

Mr. John Hynd: May we have an assurance from the Minister that on this occasion the Board will not give a ruling that the awards for teachers shall be based, as is the case with railwaymen, on the profitability of their service?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that my hon. Friend accurately reflects the Report on the railwaymen. I do not think that I should anticipate the report which the Board will make to me on this question.

Consultant Engineers' Fees and Charges

Mr. Brian Harrison: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer the method of assessing consultant engineers' fees and charges to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Does not he think that it is a crazy system whereby if a consultant engineer makes a mistake he has an increased fee at the end of the day?

Mr. Brown: Since I saw the hon. Gentleman's Question on the Order Paper, and since I prepared the Answer, I have thought again about it and I have asked the Department to let me have some information on it. [Interruption.] Good Questions quite often bring about good Answers. It is the other sort of Questions which fail.

Rural Bus Fares

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will refer the proposed increase of rural bus fares to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) on 2nd November.

Mr. Ridsdale: As this is, again, a direct result of Government action, will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove this iniquitous tax which is falling on those least able to bear it and causing great hardship in country areas?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that this is the season of the year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome comments on taxation from me. The reason for not taking the action suggested is that we believe that the statutory procedures under the Road Traffic Acts adequately safeguard the national interest.

Gross National Product

Mr. Biffen: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what percentage annual increase in the gross national product is consistent with an incomes norm of 3 to 3½ per cent.; and by what percentages the gross national product increased during 1965 and is expected to increase during 1966.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 3, 4 and 11 of the White Paper, on Prices and Incomes Policy for an answer to the first part of his Question. The latest available figures for the gross domestic product at constant prices relate to the first three-quarters of 1965 and show an increase of 2·6 per cent. over the first three-quarters of 1964. It would not be appropriate for me to forecast the expected increase during 1966.

Mr. Biffen: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an increase in the gross domestic product at the rate of 2·6 per cent. a year suggests that the


corresponding prices norm should be 2 to 2½ per cent.? Unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to suggest that the gross domestic product will grow more rapidly this year, will he take steps to revise the prices norm?

Mr. Brown: I am against doing it on these short-term bases, although we have periodic reviews of trends through the National Economic Development Council. But we must view this matter over a longer time-scale. We made it clear when the National Plan was produced that inevitably, because of our inheritance, there would be a slowing of the increase in output in the first period of the five-year plan. That does not mean that we do not expect to achieve it by the end.

Government Departments and Local Authorities (Staff)

Mr. Box: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will seek to arrange that Government Departments and local authorities contemplating any significant increase in staff, where a compensating increase in productivity cannot reasonably be expected, submit their proposals for examination by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. George Brown: I will certainly consider referring to the Board any question arising in the public sector which it could appropriately examine. But, as the hon. Member will see from the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy published last April, an inquiry into the size of the staffs of public authorities is outside the Board's normal rôle.

Mr. Box: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a period of 3½ years, during which the population has not increased, the Socialist Cardiff City Council has increased its staff by 2,000 and its wage bill by £2 million a year? Would not he agree that similar increases in wage costs must be going on in other bigger authorities throughout the country? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider whether this matter is appropriate for reference to the Board?

Mr. Brown: To my personal knowledge, very much so in Conservative-controlled councils. This is a question which we have to look at. While people

require, as they should, more and more improved community services, more people and more finance will be required. But we have to watch the matter very closely and make such that productivity applies in this field, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Industrial Development, Merseyside

Mr. Heffer: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new industries were introduced into the Merseyside Development District in 1965; what further proposals his Department has in this field; and what effect the new financial proposals will have.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): The industrial development certificates to which I referred in my Answer to my hon. Friend on 27th January covered a wide range of industries. The new proposals announced in the White Paper on Investment Incentives will, I hope, attract more firms to Merseyside.

Industry, Scotland (Investment Allowances)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the value of the new system of investment allowances to industry in Scotland.

Mr. Jay: No precise estimate can be made, since the value depends on the level of investment in industry in Scotland. On the basis of the current level of investment, the total value of the investment grants which my Department will be giving to industry in Scotland is likely to be of the order of £25 million to £30 million in a full year. In addition substantial assistance is likely to be given in the form of building grants, loans and Board of Trade factories.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most businessmen in Scotland found the depreciation allowance in development districts a most attractive incentive? Why did he cut it out?

Mr. Jay: They will now get a 40 per cent. investment cash grant and the


appropriate building grants in addition. I think those will be an even greater incentive.

Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the value of the new scheme of investment incentives will be less than the system operated by the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Jay: That will not be so, as the right hon. Gentleman will learn when we debate this in more detail.

Holds (Investment Incentives)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the new investment incentives, announced on 17th January, will not apply to buildings or equipment used by hotels either within or outside the new development areas.

Mr. Jay: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer of 27th January to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and of 31st January to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden).

Mr. Campbell: Does the President of the Board of Trade recognise that the initial allowance is no proper substitute either for the old investment allowance or for the new investment grant? Is not this change entirely contrary to the need to encourage the tourist industry, especially in Scotland?

Mr. Jay: Hotels in development areas, which now cover the greater part of Scotland, will get the Board of Trade building grant for the building. They will also get the increased initial allowance, up from 10 to 30 per cent. for plant and equipment. In addition, the Government make a £2 million a year grant to the British Travel Association.

Sir J. Maitland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that seaside resorts are, almost by definition, because of their seasonal occupation facilities, in a very bad way during the winter? Does he not realise that this will affect the general prosperity of resorts and increase unemployment in areas which really need a great deal of help?

Mr. Jay: Yes, I recognise the special problem of seaside resorts; and I think that the hotel and tourist industries are of great importance. But, for the reasons

that I have given, we are already affording them substantial help.

Mr. Barber: On hotel equipment, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether under the new scheme hotels will be better off or worse off than previously?

Mr. Jay: They will get the increased initial allowance, and that will probably, as far as they are concerned, leave them slightly worse off compared with the previous investment allowance.

Export Rebates

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now detail the specific export rebates at present applied by other Free Trade Area countries which are to be treated in the same way as United Kingdom export rebates, namely, that they will only be available as an alternative to preferential European Free Trade Association tariff treatment.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): No other E.F.T.A. country applies specific export rebates of taxes of the kind rebated under the United Kingdom scheme.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he draw it to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade, who told me that it was a general settlement? Is not this operating a one-sided concession by the United Kingdom Government which will continue in force when import surcharges have been withdrawn, although it has been imposed as a concession to satisfy people about the import surcharges?

Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend explained the point to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has been misled in the past on this question. As he knows, on 31st December of this year our exporters will be able to take advantage of either the E.F.T.A. preferential treatment or the export rebate scheme.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that it has never been part of the arrangements of the Free Trade Area that the remission of Excise duties should be forbidden on trade passing between the countries in that area? Does he not recognise that his right hon. Friend


has sold the pass on this very important issue, and that this is a perfectly legitimate device for encouraging exports?

Mr. Mason: This export rebate scheme is not incompatible with the existing rules of E.F.T.A.

Company Finances (Control)

Mr. Handing: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now introduce legislation to provide for better control over the financial affairs of public and private companies.

Mr. Jay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Companies Bill which was introduced on 2nd February.

Mr. Hamling: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the provisions of the Companies Bill do not go far enough? Why have two bites at the cherry?

Mr. Jay: If my hon. Friend will make further suggestions, we shall be glad to have them.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Will the President of the Board of Trade avoid politically vindictive legislation in the future, and concentrate on a job that wants doing?

Mr. Jay: What we are seeking in this matter is equity for all sections of the community.

Mr. Barber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if we on these benches put down an Amendment on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), it will not be treated as a matter of tomfoolery?

Mr. Jay: That is a wholly hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RAILWAYS (PROPOSED STRIKE)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to co-ordinate Government action on the basis of contingency planning regarding the national rail strike which has been called.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): All necessary steps, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Can the Prime Minister explain why there has been delay in

announcing any plans which the Government might have, bearing in mind traffic congestion, because conditions now are very much worse than they were last time that there was a threat of a railway strike? Secondly, is he aware of the anxiety of many firms about trying to organise means of getting staff to their offices on Monday? They cannot get on with it until a national plan is announced. Is this a measure of the confidence of the Prime Minister that he will be able to settle the strike himself?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the situation is in a very delicate state and that any words of his or mine might make the situation more difficult. We have prepared the necessary steps. We propose to announce them, probably today, so that those who might be affected, if there is a strike, will be able to take all necessary action.

Sir J. Rodgers: If a strike should take place, will the Prime Minister consider suspending the road traffic regulations to permit privates bus and coach operators to run services into London and allow private cars to operate and carry passengers without incurring any insurance liabilities?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman had better wait for the statement that we shall be making, probably later today. As I say, we have to concentrate our efforts at the moment on trying to avoid this strike taking place.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to treat this national emergency as an excuse for making yet another party political broadcast this weekend, well read, as usual, off the teleprompter?

The Prime Minister: I had not thought about the question of broadcasting. I am more concerned, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, with trying to avoid what I agree with him would be a national emergency.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether the measures which he says he has in mind include advice to motorists in the event of a strike, because otherwise it will result in chaos throughout central London?

The Prime Minister: The traffic problems are being fully considered in this connection.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for making the emergency arrangements, including parking, for the London commuters to deal with a railway strike.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has general responsibility for transport matters, but detailed arrangements are for the particular authorities concerned.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the absolutely chaotic conditions which will occur throughout the London area in the event of this strike? Will he ensure that a statement is made at the earliest possible moment giving the fullest possible particulars, because people have to make arrangements for their staff?

The Prime Minister: No one appreciates better than I do the serious situation which would arise. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said earlier, as against the previous railway strike 10 years ago, there have been many changes which will intensify the difficulties. I have said twice this afternoon, but I will say it a third time, that we intend to make a statement almost certainly today.

Mr. A. Royle: Can the Prime Minister tell the House which Minister will take the publicity if a settlement is reached with the unions over this strike—himself, or the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I missed the second half of the question, but if it was no better than the first I am not sorry.

Sir M. Redmayne: Has the Prime Minister taken note of some sensible suggestions made by a joint committee of the Commuter Organisation in the southeast of England, which were published in The Times yesterday, and which have formed the subject of a letter both to the Home Secretary and to the Minister of Transport, and will he act on some of them?

The Prime Minister: Full note has been taken of them, but there are even wider problems than those raised in their suggestions.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDEX OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Prime Minister whether he will transfer responsibility for the index of industrial production from the Treasury to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: The index of industrial production is in fact prepared in the Central Statistical Office which is part of the Cabinet Office.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As the Central Statistical Office is under the Treasury, as the value of the index depends on trends shown by the adjusted figures, and as the method of adjustment depends on difficult questions of economics, ought not the formulation of those methods to be the responsibility of the Minister responsible for economic affairs?

The Prime Minister: The Central Statistical Office, as I said in my original Answer, is under the Cabinet Office for which I carry responsibility. I think that the hon. Gentleman's misunderstanding about this is due to the fact that the Treasury issues the index month by month. The question of whether publication should be a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is being considered. I think that there might be a case for his putting it out, but it will still be computed in the Cabinet Office by the Central Statistical Office, which I think is the right organisation for that.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even if he changes responsibility for publication of the index, it will not alter the fact that in November of last year it was two points below what it was in January of this year, as a result of the Government's policies—stagnant production.

The Prime Minister: Nothing was more predictable than the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He put it last week as well. The answer is, as I made plain long before the election, that the situation they left us with—


[Interruption.] I hope that they are not denying that. I see the former Prime Minister in his place, and he told us that everything was all right.
With that situation and with no other weapons for dealing with it, we had to take restrictive measures, which were the only measures they ever had for dealing with the sort of situation with which they left us.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Grant: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at Huddersfield on 15th January, 1966, on the cost of living.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grant: I am most grateful to the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he recall that in his speech he said that there was no issue on which he would rather be challenged than the basic issue of the cost of living? As it has risen faster under this Government than at any time in the last 10 years, will he say when he will put his ludicrous boast to the test of the people?

The Prime Minister: In that speech, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will study and profit by, I gave the figures of the cost of living over the previous six months for 1964 and 1965. I think that that speech was made about four or five days before a rather notable test of public opinion in another part of Yorkshire, where we were told the cost of living was the main issue. When I talked about a challenge, I said this in the speech:
On prices and incomes, half of them"—
that is hon. Gentlemen opposite—
condemn the idea of a policy at all, their deputy leader speaks out bravely in favour of one, and their leader remains silent.
I would have thought that that was un-controversial.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING INDEX

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister why the Minister of Labour is charged with tabulating and publishing the Cost of Living Index; and if he will transfer this function to the

First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: Because the Minister of Labour's local offices collect, and are best able to collect, the mass of detailed information on which the Index is based. The Answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would not it be wiser to have the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs disclose these statistics, as he is mainly responsible for the rapid rise in the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is still writing his leader's speeches, I hope that he will do better than that, because I would have thought that most hon. Members agree that while the attempt to get a prices and incomes policy is a tremendously difficult one in a democratic society, and while some right hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to frustrate it, at any rate my right hon. Friend is making a more dynamic effort to get this thing done than any of his predecessors.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Prime Minister whether the substance of the political conversations which have taken place during the last six visits by Mr. Smith to the Governor of Rhodesia since the Unilateral Declaration of Independence have been communicated to him.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 25th January to a Question by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent).

Mr. King: Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House the nature of any suggestions which he has received, if not in detail at least in principle? Will he accept, from his own evidence, that opinion in Rhodesia has now hardened, and there is a real danger that time is moving against Great Britain?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree about the last point, and I am very concerned about certain actions taken by the illegal régime this week which I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral


(Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will condemn unequivocally while he is there.
What I said on 25th January I think is right, that it would be wrong for us to disclose the nature of the advice which we have been offered from time to time by the Governor of Rhodesia, and since rumours are being deliberately put about in Rhodesia that we are intending the imminent use of force, which is totally opposed to our policy, and since they are putting out the story that the Governor of Rhodesia is in favour of this, I want categorically to say that the position of the Government has not changed, and that the Governor of Rhodesia is in full support of the Government's decision not to use force to impose a constitutional settlement.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has not gone to Rhodesia with his approval? Has he heard that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that Mr. Smith and the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hughes: Do I understand that I am out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the question is a little wide of the one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hughes: I was going to conclude by asking my right hon. Friend whether he was aware that one of the suggestions made by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral was that Mr. Smith and the Prime Minister should meet at Tashkent?

The Prime Minister: Apart from that, certainly. No one on this side of the House, or in any part of it, would wish in any way to place impediments in the way of the visit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to Rhodesia, and we hope that good will come of that visit.
The only view which I have expressed is that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a Privy Councillor, a senior Member of the House, and a spokesman on these matters, I hope he made it clear when he met Mr. Smith yesterday that he was seeing him as a private person, and did not recognise him or his colleagues as a Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT RECORDS (PUBLIC INSPECTION)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister if he has re-examined requests that some classes of official records should be made available before a lapse of 50 years; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: As the Answer to my hon. Friend's Question is lengthy, and in order not to detain the House, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As some foreign practice is very much more liberal than ours, this is putting the British version of recent events at a substantial disadvantage. In view of the fact that many historians and academics feel strongly about this, will my right hon. Friend give some indication of what decision he has made, and say whether he would receive representations from representative academics and historians on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I think that I have had all the representations that I could want. To avoid wearying the House, I am circulating the statement, but this is a matter affecting all parties, and the House as a whole, and I am in consultation with the Leaders of the two Opposition parties on the general proposition of a shortening of the rule. What I have described in my statement is a proposal that all the records of the First World War, and the period immediately afterwards, should now be open for academic research. On the broader question, we all want to make progress, but I think that we should as far as possible proceed by inter-party agreement.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that if only he would carry this extension a little further we might find out what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was up to about Suez, let alone Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I think that recent publications both from Canadian and Israeli sources suggest that there is nothing left to learn about what the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, and all that we are waiting for is for him or one of his colleagues to come to the House and admit that the House was seriously misled in 1956 with the


inaccurate statements made on that occasion.
Following is the Answer:
After consultation with the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Government have recommended that, apart from any records which still have to be withheld for reason's of public policy, Cabinet and Departmental records in the Public Record Office dating from the period of the first World War up to the end of 1922—the year in which the Coalition Government fell—should be opened to public inspection forthwith and in a single operation instead of being released a year at a time under the normal operation of the 50-year Rule prescribed by the Public Records Act, 1958.
Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the recommendation in relation to records of the Cabinet and its Committees. It will be put into effect today under Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act.
I hope that this measure will be received as an earnest of the Government's intentions in relation to an alteration in the 50-year Rule itself, which would require legislation. The Government are at present discussing with the right hon. Gentlemen the Leaders of the Opposition parties the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Public Records in this regard; and I hope to be able to make a further statement in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Foreign Secretary in London on 25th January on Great Britain and the European community represents Government policy.

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 26th January at a luncheon given by the Federal Trust for Education and Research in London about this country and the European Common Market represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Prime Minister recognise that the Foreign Secretary's speech on that occasion was regarded by representatives of the Common Market who were present to hear him as evidence of advance from 1958 to 1961? I suppose that one must welcome this progress in the 15 months which the right hon.

Gentleman has held his office, but does not he think that it is time the Government came up to 1966 and made a firm pledge to join the European Community?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said exactly what is the right position on 25th January, 1966. He stated, on the basis of what we had said in 1962, what the conditions were. He said that some were now in the process of being realised. He said that we would join if we could get the right conditions to safeguard British interests. I hope that all hon. Members would agree that we should join if we can get the right conditions to safeguard British interests.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since—[Interruption.]—I am grateful for the support of hon. Members opposite. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Foreign Secretary made his statement—which we recognise was intended to be helpful—the Community has reconciled its differences without any change whatever in the Treaty of Rome, and that far from abandoning its agricultural policy it is now proceeding to develop it further? Will the Prime Minister therefore make a clear declaration of intent, to be backed by the Foreign Secretary, that he accepts the Treaty of Rome and also accepts the development of the agricultural policy? Unless he does this his statements towards Europe are meaningless.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to compete with the right hon. Member. No statement could be more meaningless than the one he made on his Commonwealth tour, if correctly reported in the British Press. It seems that his enthusiasm to get into Europe diminishes the further he gets from Europe. But I welcome the renewed interest of the right hon. Gentleman in this subject, because in their election manifesto last lime Europe was hardly mentioned by the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman, the then Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House seems to be forgetting that it likes the cut and thrust of debate. I want to hear it.

The Prime Minister: The then Prime Minister called it a dead duck at that time. However, the position is, as we have said, that we will go in if we get the right terms. I believe that what the


right hon. Gentleman asks is for unconditional entry into Europe. I have warned him time and time again that the agricultural policy as it is—and perhaps still more if it is developed—would be very prejudicial to our interests, to the import bill, the cost of living, and trade with the Commonwealth. This is one of the things that we would have to be totally satisfied about before giving any unconditional commitment of the kind that he, when in Europe, seems willing to give.

Sir G. de Freitas: Since this speech was made in London while the Council of Europe was meeting in Strasbourg and was, on the whole, well received by our friends and Members of Parliament from both the Six and the E.F.T.A. countries, will the Prime Minister encourage the Foreign Secretary to make such important speeches in Strasbourg in future?

The Prime Minister: That is a fair point. If my right hon. Friend were in Strasbourg I am sure that he would want to deal with this situation very fully, but he was invited to make this speech in London. It has been generally well received, although some Members have tried to read more into it than was actually said.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say whether all the principles laid down by the late Hugh Gaitskell about going into Europe still apply?

The Prime Minister: They were commended by him in a very memorable speech, but it was not only his own view; it was the view of a large majority at the Labour Party conference. The five conditions certainly still apply, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, through the passage of events the difficulties of getting some of them achieved are now much less, particularly, for example, the first one—the problem of protecting the other E.F.T.A. countries.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the last election the Opposition said hardly a word about this, and did not make it an issue? Does he also recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition failed in the negotiations for Britain's entry into E.E.C.? Why should we pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of my right hon. Friend's supplementary question, I once quoted in the House the anodyne remarks in the Conservative Party manifesto, on which they seem to be trying to build now. But their leader described the whole issue, 16 months ago, as a dead duck. I join with the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the fact that in the recent discussions in Luxembourg the Five and France have come much closer together. All of us, on both sides of the House, when we discussed this question several times before Christmas, felt that, while we did not want to take sides between the Five and the One, we had a common interest in hoping for the kind of result now achieved. We welcome what happened in Luxembourg.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he looks at the reports of my speech at the Press conference in Kuala Lumpur, to which he referred, he will find no weakening of my position towards Europe? Secondly, is he aware that by his Answer this afternoon he has made it absolutely clear—and the House is grateful to him for this—that tie conditions that he is laying down make it quite impossible for him to negotiate with the European Community?

The Prime Minister: I shall be glad to see a much fuller account of that Press conference. I have seen only what the British Press took out of it, and we have all suffered from that ourselves. I am not complaining about that. The only condition that I have laid down was that British interests must be safeguarded, and I should have thought that the whole House would accept that—even the right hon. Gentleman, in his more constructive moments. As for the specific issue, namely, the effect of the Community's agricultural policy on our import bill, the cost of living and Commonwealth trade, I would have hoped that even the right hon. Gentleman would have shown some concern about it, and would not have gone rushing into commitments of which he has not yet understood the full implications.

Mr. Jenkin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was rather an anticlimax.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH RAILWAYS (PAY CLAIM)

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 11 and 23 together.
With my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and Minister of Transport I met representatives of the railway unions this morning.
We stressed that a national railway strike would have the most serious consequences for the railways, the men who work on them, and the country. On the understanding that no time would be lost in entering into discussion on those parts of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report relating to productivity, I expressed the Government's willingness to authorise the British Railways Board to improve the offers already made to the extent of advancing the implementation of the 3½ per cent. pay increase by one month, to 1st September, 1966.
We urged the unions to call off the proposed strike and to resume negotiations with the British Railways Board on the basis of this and the offers already made, and made it clear that the Government could not agree to any further concession. The union representatives undertook further to consult their executives without delay.

Mr. Marten: None of us would wish to say anything to jeopardise an honourable settlement of this proposed strike, but can the right hon. Gentleman elaborate what he has said on the question of productivity? Will this be brought into the present negotiations, or deferred until a later stage?

Mr. Brown: I would ask the hon. Member to be so kind as not to press that point now. Anything I say in this respect is only likely to be misunderstood during the afternoon in some way or other, in some quarter or another. I shall be happy to deal with that question later.

Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us find unacceptable the proposition of the Prices an Incomes Board that pay awards should be related to earnings and not to basic wage rates,

and that in this matter they constitute an unfair discrimination against railway-men? Will he therefore make it clear that in the negotiations taking place there will be no binding commitment on any of the parties to accept the recommendations contained in the report?

Mr. Brown: I should like my hon. Friend to take it from me that all the parties concerned, all the unions and the Board, will understand what the situation is. I am sure that we are much better advised to leave it now with them.

DIESEL TRAIN, RADLETT (FIRE)

Mr. Longden (by Private Notice): Mr. Longden (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport namely, whether she will make a statement about a fire which broke out on a commuter train near Report, Hertfordshire, early yesterday morning, as a result of which 30 people had to be taken to hospital.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): At about 8.20 a.m. yesterday morning a fire occurred in a diesel multiple unit train from Harpenden to St. Pancras. The train was stopped near Radlett close to the Handley Page Aircraft Company's works. The company's fire brigade and ambulances were summoned and reached the scene very rapidly. I understand that 33 passengers were injured and removed to hospital, and that 9 are still detained. A number of other passengers received slight injuries and were treated at the site.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in wishing them all a speedy recovery. I have ordered a formal inquiry into this accident and the report will be published.

Mr. Longden: I thank the Minister for that reply and associate myself with her sympathy. Is she aware that the exceptional hazards of commuters are increasing daily? Will she increase the scope of the inquiry to look into the whole arrangements of British Railways?

Mrs. Castle: No, Sir, a number of accidents have recently been given publicity, and I am, of course, watching the position closely, but there is no trend to show a general deterioraiton in safety.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a large number of those injured were constituents of mine and that there is grave concern in St. Albans that this is the tenth of a series of similar accidents of this sort where fire has broken out and that, but for the good fortune of a train not coming in the opposite direction, many lives might have been lost? Will she look into the whole series of accidents?

Mrs. Castle: It is true that 12 fires in this type of stock were reported in 1965, but only one was serious. Most were minor and the inspecting officer will take them into account in his report which, as I said, will be published.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that safety on British Railways is as good as safety on any railway system in the world, that the number of accidents and deaths has gone down year by year since 1947, and that the comparison with road accidents is very striking?

Mrs. Castle: I think that it would be true to say that there are no grounds for feeling that there has been a general deterioration in safety.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the National Health Service Bill.
Motions on the Weights and Measures (Solid Fuel) (Carriage by Rail) Order, the (Exemption) (Milk) Order, and on the Double Taxation Relief Order.
It is hoped that this business will be concluded by about seven o'clock, to allow a short debate on early day Motion No. 91.
TUESDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to approve the White Papers on Investment Incentives and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Command Nos. 2874 and 2889).
WEDNESDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Progress with the remaining stages of the National Insurance Bill.
Motion on the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Exports and Imports) Order.
THURSDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Completion of the remaining stages of the National Insurance Bill, and of the Universities (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords] and the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.
FRIDAY, 18TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 21ST FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the Companies Bill.

Mr. Heath: On the second half of Monday's business, on Motion No. 91—
[That this House deplores the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham on 31st January designed, it would seem, to offer comfort to the rebel régime of Mr. Smith, insult African Commonwealth countries and delay the return to constitutional rule in Rhodesia]—
does the Leader of the House recall that when, on 18th March, 1965, he announced the arrangements for debating the Motion relating to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on a matter which concerned his honour, he said that, as it was a House of Commons matter, there would be no Whips on and that, if there was a Division at all, it would be a free vote?
As Motion No. 91 also concerns the honour of a right hon. Gentleman and is a House of Commons matter, can he give us an assurance that the same arrangements will hold for Monday night's debate as held in the case of the hon. Member for Ashfield?
Secondly, on Tuesday's business, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this, of course, does not take the place of the general economic debate for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) asked after the Chancellor's statement last Tuesday?

Mr. Bowden: On the second point, I note the request for a general economic


debate, which we can probably have during the next two or three weeks.
On the first point, I accept that, in the earlier case, on the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), the Motion before the House was that the matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges, which was purely a House of Commons matter. The Motion before the House on Monday of next week is whether hon. Members are of the opinion that the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) did or did not offer comfort to the rebel régime of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.
This is rather a different point from that which arose on the earlier occasion. It is not for me to say whether my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who adorn the ends of the Front Benches, will want to have a free vote or not. This is a matter for them, but I think that it is quite a different matter from the earlier one.
If the right hon. Member for Streatham thinks that this is solely a matter of honour—I see his point, to some extent, that to suggest that he is associated in helping the rebel régime can certainly be regarded as a matter of honour, and he may be very upset about this—this could easily be put right by a personal statement in the House. But if this goes to a debate on this Motion, I would think—this is again a matter for the two Members whom I have mentioned—that it would have to be on a normal vote.

Mr. Heath: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about this? He has given Government time in arranging business for this debate precisely because of the sentence which he has used, that this is a matter of personal honour of a right hon. Member of this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). In this respect, it is exactly the same as on the previous occasion, which concerned the hon. Member for Ashfield.
I would, therefore, ask him to give us an assurance, which is quite commonly given by the Leader of the House and not by arrangement between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and

the Opposition Chief Whip, that, in his view, this is a matter on which there should be a free vote.

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, during business questions last week, while I accepted, rightly, that there should be a debate, I was hesitant about accepting that it should take place on this Motion. For that reason, I would have hoped that it could have taken place on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, when there may or may not have been a Division at the end. However, on this Motion, I think that a Division would have to be taken.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that, having arranged a debate because my honour has been impugned, his party will tell its supporters how to vote before even having heard what I have to say?

Mr. Bowden: The early-day Motion before us on Monday is not concerned directly with the right hon. Gentleman's honour, which might arise out of it. The question in front of the House will be the one which I have repeated, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman's words in his speech at Streatham gave comfort to the rebel régime. That is the issue. I would remind him—

Mr. Sandys: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bowden: I will finish, if I may.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during that debate on Monday of next week, he cannot help—nor can his right hon. Friends who support him; many may not—being completely censorious of the Government's attitude and action over Rhodesia. Therefore, it would be quite impossible for the Government to agree to a free vote.

Mr. Sandys: May I correct the Leader of the House? If he will look at the Motion, he will see that the question before the House will not be whether my words gave comfort to Mr. Smith's régime, but whether they were "designed" to give comfort, which is quite a different matter. That implies that it was my intention to do something which would be regarded as treasonable. If that is not a matter of honour, I do


not know what is. All I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that that is the question which I propose to answer and not what is the right policy for the Government to conduct in relation to Rhodesia.

Mr. Bowden: Had the right hon. Gentleman been prepared to make a personal statement afterwards, which no one would have questioned, the position would have been very different. We have now got ourselves into having a debate on the Motion, and I regret it as much as anyone else.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. I hope that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, in referring to an inquiry which I made of you before deciding what course to take. I asked you, Mr. Speaker, whether you thought that it would be a suitable matter which I could raise in the form of a personal statement. Your advice to me was that it was liable to be controversial, and that, therefore, it would not be a suitable matter to raise at the close of business as a personal statement.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: The facts are as the right hon. Gentleman stated them. He came to Mr. Speaker for advice. Among the things we discussed was the question of a personal statement. I did suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this might be a difficult personal statement to make because of the question whether or not a matter of honour came into it might be regarded controversial. That was something on which I was not prepared to adjudicate and on which the House might have differences of opinion.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order. I am sure that we are all grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that help and assistance which you have just given the House, but, in the light of it, may I now ask the Leader of the House to give the assurance for which we have asked in view of the fact that it is now apparent that a debate on this Motion was the only course open to either my right hon. Friend or the House?

Mr. Bowden: The Leader of the Opposition will recall what Mr. Speaker just said; that in his view this is a controversial matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that a controversial

matter should be settled in the House on a free vote?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that neither side will endeavour to bring the Chair into issues which divide the House.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend answer two questions on completely unrelated topics? First, can he say when we will get the third day during the Session to debate one of the Estimates Committee's Reports and, secondly, will he give an assurance that we will have a very early debate on the Welfare State, in view of the declared intention of the Leader of the Opposition to demolish it?

Mr. Bowden: To answer the first point, I think that we had better make a little more progress before we have the third day. We are already well ahead on it.
To answer the second point, we did have a short debate yesterday on the winter Supplementary Estimates, on the National Health Service. Speeches have been made in the country and publications have been issued and I think that there might be some value in having a debate on the Welfare State, but I cannot promise it for next week.

Mr. Grimond: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, in view of the exchanges earlier today, in which it emerged that there is some doubt about where some people stand on the Common Market issue, and in view of the changes in Europe itself, would the right hon. Gentleman see to it that before Easter we have a debate specifically confined to the Common Market issue?
Secondly, to revert to the question of Monday's debate, is it a proper use of the Notice Paper to put down Motions reflecting on hon. Members which clearly cannot be dealt with by way of personal statements? This, I think, is not the only one on the Notice Paper. Surely, even if this is a controversial matter, is it not a subject on which it would be eminently in order for the House as a whole to decide, without the Whips being on?

Mr. Bowden: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the only critical early-day Motion on the Notice Paper. There are many of them. As I said earlier in the House, in a debate


on procedure, I think that the early-day Motion idea has very long departed from its original intention.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about having a debate on Europe, I think that we must wait a little while, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there will be debates on various Votes and on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and so on, before the end of March.

Mr. William Yates: May I draw your attention to Motion No. 101, Mr. Speaker—
[That this House would welcome an independent investigation to ascertain to what extent the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on Rhodesia is determined by the fact that very many prominent Tories, including some 41 Members of Parliament, Peers, former Members of Parliament, and Ministers, have directorships of companies with financial interests in Rhodesia.]
and to the fact that an Amendment is on the Notice Paper standing in the name of "Mr. Victor Yates"—
[Line 2, leave out from "investigation" to end and add "on Rhodesia, but thanks the Conservative opposition for at least trying to seek reconciliation between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Government and people and condemns the adamant attitude of the Labour Government towards Rhodesia and the Senate personally because it is founded firstly on ignorance of the real situation, secondly on really bad official advice, thirdly on a totally wrong and false moral premise, and finally out of an acute race complex which affected the Labour Party after their defeats at both Smethwick and Leyton."]—
when, in fact, the Amendment should stand in my name?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) will raise that as a point of order at the appropriate moment this afternoon. However, he can pursue a business question if he wishes.

Mr. William Yates: Now that there are two complications involving the debate on Rhodesia, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it would not be fair to the House to allow the Motion concerning

my right hon. Friend's personal honour to be debated without the Whips being on and then later, on Thursday, to have a full-dress debate on Rhodesia, for that, I think, would satisfy many hon. Members?

Mr. Bowden: As to whether the hon. Gentleman's name has been correctly or incorrectly placed on the Notice Paper, that is a matter for the authorities of the House and not for me.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the debate on Rhodesia, I have already said that my right hon. Friend and the Opposition Chief Whip could discuss that between themselves—but my advice to them would be that this should not be a free vote. I have already said that.

Mr. Woodburn: I appeal to the House not to have two things confused on Monday by having a general debate on Rhodesia and the right hon. Gentleman's opinions on it and any question of personal imputation. I suggest, with great respect, that it would be wise for the House to separate these two matters and to have the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) make his personal statement, about which there would be no debate, and then to have a debate on Rhodesia, about which strong feelings exist on both sides of the House.

Mr. Bowden: Precisely so. The early day Motion on Monday is quite separate from the Orders on Rhodesia, which come later in the week.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When commenting earlier on the Motion affecting my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) did the Leader of the House really mean to say that a matter which was controversial could not be the subject of a free vote in the House?

Mr. Bowden: I went much further than that, if the hon. Gentleman will recall my remarks. I said that the debate could not take place without it being censorious of the Government's attitude over Rhodesia and, therefore, the Government's policy. In those circumstances, I said that I could not advise otherwise than that the Whips should be on.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that this does not


necessarily follow? The object of the debate is not to move a Motion of censure, or that it should be censorious of Government policy, but to discuss accusations against my right hon. Friend that his speech was designed, an act of will, to give comfort to Mr. Smith's régime, which is a quite clear and separate issue from that of the Government's policy.

Mr. Bowden: I do not dispute that that might be the right hon. Gentleman's view and his hope and objective, but once we get into this debate and begin to quote, as hon. Members must, the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham, we will be in a much wider debate.

Sir G. Nicholson: More or less as a point of order, has your attention been called to Motion No. 101, Mr. Speaker, in which innuendoes and insinuations are made about the honour of hon. Members of the Opposition? May I ask, with respect, if you are satisfied that there is not the possibility of the Notice Paper being used in an unworthy way in this manner?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Hard words are bandied about on the Notice Paper, by one side of the House about the other. This is not new in history, and it is quite improper to ask Mr. Speaker to express his opinion on any of the Motions on the Notice Paper. If any of them contravened the Orders of the House they would not be there.

Sir G. Nicholson: Without wishing to be guilty of impropriety, Mr. Speaker, is it not clear that in debate we are forbidden from making innuendoes and accusations about people's or hon. Members' honour? It is clear to me that it is going against something which is in keeping with the feeling of the whole House if the Notice Paper is used for a contrary purpose.

Mr. Speaker: I must be most careful to ensure that I express no opinion whatever on anything which might be regarded as controversial. However, I have glanced at Motion No. 101. It is, as I have said, a comment made by one part of the House on another, and such attacks are not unusual. It is not the only one on the Notice Paper.

Sir G. Nicholson: I am sorry to persist, Mr. Speaker, but does this leave an indirect charge of corruption against certain hon. Members? If so, I submit that it is improper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must accept from Mr. Speaker what I have said again and again in reply. Charges are made against groups of Members by other groups of Members in all kinds of terms—polite, and not so polite. I can express no opinion on the merits of this particular Motion, or any other Motion. If it is out of order, it would not get on to the Order Paper.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I presume that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper—in which there are no hard words—supported now by 231 hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and asking for help for a body of pensioners, the railway super-annuitants, who have had no consideration over recent years, and none from the present Government. Will my right hon. Friend arrange either to satisfy this demand, or to have a debate on the subject?
[That this House notes with regret that the Pensions (Increase) Acts still do not provide for railway superannuitants whose pensions fail to match rises in the cost of living, and urges Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly in future legislation or by other means.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must only ask whether opportunity can be found for debating the Motion.

Mr. Bowden: This Motion was No. 1 in the last Session of Parliament, too. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made a statement in the House yesterday which goes part way to meeting the signatories of the Motion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, before the expiration of the option on the F111 aircraft, this matter will be debated, because it is largely irreversible, and that which follows from it will not be directly confined to this question? Can we have a debate soon?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Member will be aware that we shall have the Defence


White Paper and six days on defence in the normal way before very long.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to Motion No. 108? In view of its uncontroversial nature, does he think that we could have a free vote?
[That this House notes that there was a heavy selling on the New York Stock Exchange of the shares of companies manufacturing bombers, napalm bombs, toxic gas and other weapons being used by the United States forces in Vietnam after a report received from Delhi that Ho Chi Minh had started a peace offensive; and urges the Prime Minister, in his next communication to President Johnson, that he should ask for immediate legislation to prevent further profits being made by United States armament firms out of the cruel and barbarous war in Vietnam.]

Mr. Bowden: I have seen the Motion. No doubt the Prime Minister, who is required to noted the content, has already done so.

Sir F. Bennett: Could the Leader of the House do something to clarify the minds of some back benchers as to Monday's business? Since it is now obvious that the Whips will be on for debate on the Motion which has been mentioned earlier, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, the Government Front Bench will have the courage to sign that Motion, or are they proposing to rely on the unusual precedent of putting on a Whip on a Private Members' Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not business questions. Signing a Motion has nothing to do with this.

Mr. Kershaw: Has the Leader of the House seen Motion No. 99, relating to the Reserve Forces, signed by my hon. Friends and myself? If so, can he give an undertaking that there will be an opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals on this subject before we come to the debates on defence?
[That this House, while welcoming the Government's belated admission that the Territorial Army has a vital rôle to play in home defence, deplores the proposal to establish for this purpose a self-contained, inadequately equipped force with

separate organisation, thus destroying the structure, morale and organisation of the Territorial Army as a military force available for a wide variety of rôles, and prejudicing the prospects of recruitment.]

Mr. Bowden: As the hon. Member is aware, we have already had a debate on Territorial Associations. As the proposals will need legislation, we shall have debates on the legislation when it arises, but it will be quite in order to raise the subject in the defence debates.

Mr. Bellenger: I should like to put this point to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He has had some hesitations in answering questions from the Opposition benches as to the form that Monday's debate will take. Obviously, if it includes some censure of the Government's actions we all understand—hon. Members of the Opposition, too—that there must be a Government Whip; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is to lead off by a personal explanation, without criticism of Government action, and the debate takes that form, may it not be possible that no vote whatever is taken, and the expurgation is made which, Mr. Speaker, I gathered you rather suggested could not be made on the Motion, and that we leave it at that?

Mr. Bowden: I would be very happy if there were to be no vote on the Motion at all. My right hon. Friend may recall that in business exchanges last week, I said that I hoped that the debate would be on the Adjournment. But if a vote takes place, the Government's position and that of hon. Members on this side must be absolutely clear. The Government must reserve their own position.

Mr. Stratton-Mills: Can the Leader of the House give a date for the publication of the Bill containing the legislative enactments of the Government's incomes policy?

Mr. Bowden: I am sorry, but I cannot give the actual date. But it will not be presented next week.

Sir D. Renton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have a debate on yesterday's statement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government about his handling of certain planning applications, which was criticised by the Council on Tribunals?

Mr. Bowden: A debate on this subject will, of course, be in order on an Opposition Motion or on a Supply day. There are a number of Supply days available to the Opposition between now and the end of March. I cannot promise Government time at the moment.

Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on Motion No. 85, signed by hon. Members on both sides, relating to the establishment of a camp site to serve central London? In particular, some hon. Members will welcome an opportunity to discuss which member of the Government Front Bench would be responsible.
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to sponsor the provision of facilities for overseas camping and caravan holidaymakers in the heart of London comparable to those provided in Paris, Rome and Lisbon.]

Mr. Bowden: I understand that discussions are going on between Departments and the British Travel Association. I think that we had better await the result of the discussions, and talk of debate afterwards.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), is it not unusual, when a Minister has been censured by a responsible outside body and that Minister has himself stated that he would welcome a debate, for the Government to rely on the Opposition to provide time? Surely, it is up to the Government to provide time.

Mr. Bowden: I cannot provide additional time at present for anything at all.

Captain Litchfield: With reference to Motion No. 85, may I ask the Leader of the House to resist the temptation to waste the time of the House on such a cracked-brained scheme?

Mr. Bowden: That point might well be made in a debate, if we had it.

Mr. G. Campbell: Despite what the Leader of the House said last week, will he find time soon for a debate on the White Paper on the Scottish Economy, as some of the assumptions in it seem already to be altered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement this week?

Mr. Bowden: As I suggested last week, this could be debated rather more quickly in the Scottish Grand Committee if it used one of its Supply days, but there are two days available on the Floor of the House in the current Session.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on Motion No. 67, relating to advertising and the Press, as this is a matter not only of the national Press but, in particular, the weekly and the provincial Press?
[That this House views with concern the concentration of advertisement placing, both commercial and official, in fewer and fewer newspapers, to the detriment of the others; draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the statement by the President of the Advertising Association, Lord Robens, in the Sunday Citizen on 12th December, 1965, that advertising revenue forms a substantial part of the income of newspapers and periodicals and that advertisers, with their large stake in the fortunes of the Press, must therefore bear some responsibility for maintaining its variety and vigour; and calls upon all national advertisers, including Her Majesty's Government, so to diversify a proportion of their advertising as to make a significant contribution to ensuring the independence of existing newspapers and periodicals and an increasing freedom of choice for the public]

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot find time at the moment. I explained what happened previously on an exchange on this point last week.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the Leader of the House aware that a very large teachers' strike has been called in Scotland later this month, and that this is the first of a series? If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not intend to make an early statement about this grave situation, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Motion No. 97, which covers the background to the situation and the Secretary of State's unhappy rôle in it?
[That this House deplores the manner in which the Secretary of State for Scotland has treated the Scottish Joint Council on Teachers' Salaries, thus provoking a crisis in Scottish education; regrets in particular his decision on the one hand to refer the matter to the National Board


for Prices and Incomes while at the same time apparently prejudging the issue by cutting the unanimous salary recommendation of the Scottish Joint Council; calls attention to the urgent need to restore confidence among teachers, particularly in view of the raising of the school leaving age in 1970; but trusts that teachers in Scotland will reconsider their proposed strike action in order to preserve the high standing of their profession.]

Mr. Bowden: I wonder whether it would be useful to have a debate when the matter is before the Prices and Incomes Board. There will be opportunities later, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, to debate this on Scottish occasions.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government intend to publish the Bill on leasehold enfranchisement?

Mr. Bowden: I could not promise the hon. Gentleman a date for the publication of the Bill, but the White Paper is not very far away.

Mr. Dance: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by about 80 hon. Members, relating to compensation to police and prison officers? In view of the urgent need for better recruitment to both of these forces, will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate on this very serious matter?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to give urgent consideration to a review of the existing compensation arrangements in the police and prison service with a view to ensuring that in future a widow of a police or prison officer killed in the execution of his duty receives a pension equivalent to that which would have been paid had her husband retired at the normal pensionable age; and that an officer who has to take work at a lower salary because of serious injury in the execution of his duty has that salary made up to the amount he would have received had he remained a police or prison officer.]

Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time at the moment. This matter could, of course, have been raised—in part, if not completely—in the debate on crime.

Mr. Lubbock: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 109, concerning the film "The War Game". Since many hon. Members have had an opportunity to see this film, and are confirmed in the opinions they have expressed, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for an early debate on the subject?
[That this House considers that the British Broadcasting Corporation television programme, The War Game, should be shown as widely as possible, both on its merit as an outstanding example of British film production and as part of the officially approved process of educating the public in the realities of nuclear war; and that, in addition to British audiences, it should also be made available for showing in countries whose Governments possess or are contemplating the possession of nuclear weapons.]

Mr. Bowden: It is rather unusual to be requested to find time to debate a film; we could spend a lot of time in that way. But the question whether the film should have been broadcast by the B.B.C. is within the day-to-day activity of the B.B.C., in regard to which no Government have any power to take any action.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the fiscal activities of the Treasury, will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting aside one day a week for statements by the Treasury so that we do not have what amounts to a weekly Budget?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.

Mr. Ridsdale: In view of his attitude to the Motion to be debated on Monday, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on being liberal-minded enough not to remove the inkstands and letter rack from the Table of the House, which were the gift of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are under pressure for time. I hope that business questions will be business questions.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Reverting to Motion No. 109, will my right hon. Friend take into account that the issue at stake is the discussion of the nature of nuclear war and whether or not the conspiracy of silence there has been over many years should be continued?

Mr. Bowden: As has been explained from this Box on many occasions by the Prime Minister, there has never at any time been a question of censorship of this particular film. If the B.B.C. wishes to show the film, that is a matter for the B.B.C. As to the effects of nuclear war, there has never been at any time—under either Government, I think—an attempt to screen what would be the result of such a catastrophe.

Mr. Goodhew: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), surely the House is entitled to know whether on Monday we shall be debating a Government Motion or not. If this is to be a debate on Government policy in Rhodesia, may be have a debate lasting longer than from seven o'clock to ten o'clock?

Mr. Bowden: The Motion is on the Order Paper in the name of my backbench hon. Friends. I imagine that it will be debated in that order.

Mr. Buck: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a Motion signed by 50 of my hon. Friends which calls upon the House to have a series of experiments whereby speeches would be limited to Front-Bench speeches of 30 minutes and back-bench speeches of 15 minutes? Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to see that this is debated, so that we can co-operate with Mr. Speaker in getting the work of the House expedited?
[That this House views with concern the very limited time available in major debates to back-bench Members who are not Privy Councillors, and calls for a series of experiments whereby in debates of a general character, front-bench speakers be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes each and all other speakers to a maximum of 15 minutes.]

Mr. Bowden: In addition to that Motion there was a proposal by the Select Committee on Procedure that speeches should be limited to 5 minutes. There is a great deal of merit in all this, but I do not think that we can make a decision on it at the moment.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Reverting to Motion No. 109 and what my right hon. Friend said in answer to a previous question about there not being ignorance concerning what the effects of a nuclear war might

be, is he aware that the film makes clear how little is understood by ordinary people of what the effects of nuclear war would be? Does he not, therefore, think that a debate in this House on this Motion, or something like it, might be useful in spreading knowledge of what people are not allowed to see?

Mr. Bowden: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "what people are not allowed to see". This is a matter for the B.B.C. The B.B.C. might now decide to show the film; it is a matter for the Corporation. I agree that any information we may glean from films, although films are not always accurate, would be of help.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (ROYAL COMMISSIONS)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will know, it is the practice for Her Majesty's approval to the establishment of Royal Commissions to be announced by the Prime Minister. I have, therefore, the privilege of informing the House that the Counsellors of State, acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, have approved that Royal Commissions be appointed to undertake a comprehensive review of local government in England and Scotland respectively.
I will announce at a later date the names of the chairmen and members, together with the terms of reference of the two Royal Commissions.
As regards Wales, proposals for the reorganisation of local government are already at an advanced state of preparation and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to present a White Paper in due course.
The decisions I have just announced will, of course, have far reaching effects on the present arrangements for reviewing and revising local government organisation in England. For the convenience of the House my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will now make, with your permission. Mr. Speaker, a further statement, and will answer hon. Members' questions, on these aspects of the Government's decisions.

Mr. Heath: Does the Minister recall that on another occasion he said that a Royal Commission is an institution which takes minutes and wastes time? In these circumstances, why is he setting up Royal Commissions to deal with this urgent and important matter of local government reform which will inhibit any changes in local government of any major kind during the years the Commissions are sitting, while the findings are being considered by a Government, and while the legislation is passing through the House?
On a serious point, will he not give consideration to the question whether Royal Commissions for dealing with matters of this kind is not an out-moded piece of machinery and whether there should not be a new form of machinery constructed to which, if outside members are required, they should be seconded from their occupations, paid full time to give full attention to these matters and reach conclusions speedily in a limited time so that the Government would give consideration to them? These are urgent matters which the Government apparently consider require attention and they should have machinery to deal with them of a sort which has not been used in this case.

The Prime Minister: In the quotation which the right hon. Member rightly attributed to me I said, on 7th September, 1964, about a particular proposal by the then Government for dealing with a proposal, that I thought it would take too long to deal with it by a Royal Commission. On that particular proposal we have now legislated and it has become law. A Royal Commission would have taken too long on that particular proposal, which could be dealt with by the House.
Certainly, if my right hon. Friend felt that on the local government question there would be delay we would not have proposed Royal Commissions, but we feel that so much information has been collected on a rather partial and local basis that it is essential to have decisions taken and that Royal Commissions will actually speed procedure.
The suggestion that, in a matter of this importance, rather than having a part-time Royal Commission one should ask the members to devote their full time—with possible implications of payment—

has been put forward on many occasions and I certain would not rule it out. I think it worth considering, without commitment.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, although he is not in a position today to announce the terms of reference of the Commissions, they will include a decision on local government finance and possibly some democratic form of regionalism? As there will be widespread anxiety about delay, can he say how long he thinks it will be before the Commissions report? Do I understand that in the meantime all the tentative proposals for local government reform—there has been a White Paper on Scottish local government for some time—will be held in abeyance and there will be no change while awaiting the Reports of the Commissions?

The Prime Minister: It is our view that this will be the speediest method of dealing with the situation rather than dealing with it by a partial method. As to the terms of reference, I cannot see how the Commissions could go into the question without touching on the question of finance and other issues.
As to the status of reports which have so far been made and the procedures so far followed, I thought it would be more convenient to follow the usual form of announcing the Queen's gracious permission to have set up Royal Commissions and suggesting that my right hon. Friend should follow with a rather fuller statement because, as he is in closest touch with the individual inquiries which are going on, it is better for him to answer. Most hon. Members in touch with this matter in their own areas could put questions to my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now, if hon. Members will allow him to do so.

Dr. David Kerr: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, although we appreciate that there are certain difficulties about Royal Commissions as a method of investigating this very complex problem, we none the less welcome them as far superior to the rushed chaos which was represented by the London Government Act of the previous Administration? In view of the possibility of causing chaos by rushing things too much, would my right hon. Friend please note that


chaos was prevented in that case only by the fact that most authorities under that Act were elected as Labour-controlled authorities?

The Prime Minister: Without expressing any view on that issue, which was fully debated in the time of the last Government, I think that the House will see the arguments for the Royal Commissions better when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made his statement.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to stop questioning for the moment. I hope, however, that the House will note the Prime Minister's statement that this is to be followed by another statement by the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the implications of the Royal Commissions. Questions for the moment are on the Royal Commission itself.

Sir G. Nicholson: The Prime Minister would help the House a great deal if he would say how often he thinks that the Royal Commissions will be able to meet. Will it be more than once a month? Will it be once a fortnight?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether I took the right course this afternoon. This is a new experiment which I thought would be convenient to the House—that I should make the formal announcement and the responsible Minister, who is in close touch with the problems, could answer detailed questions. Perhaps it was right. Perhaps it was wrong. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House.
I feel, without wanting in any way to foreclose questions, Mr. Speaker, that if my right hon. Friend could make his statement some of the questions right hon. and hon. Members have would be more properly addressed to him. I am not running away from the questions. I should be delighted to answer them, but I think that they would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order. Naturally, I wish to fit in with what the Prime Minister and you suggest, Mr. Speaker. However, as the Minister of Housing and Local Government has no

responsibilities in Scotland it will be impossible for him to answer questions which Scottish Members may wish to put to him and which can, therefore, be put only to the Prime Minister.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order. If the House were to agree and you, Mr. Speaker, were to give your approval, I wonder whether we should hear the statement of the Minister of Housing and Local Government straight away and whether you would permit questions to be put which might be answered either by the Prime Minister or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, according to their relevance.

Mr. Speaker: That would be rather confusing, I think. I must respect the claims of Scotsmen.

Mr. G. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a White Paper on the Reorganisation of Local Government in Scotland was published more than two years ago, and as a great deal of work has been done on it, both by the local authority associations and by the Scottish Office, why has this work now been held up and why should it be necessary for Scotland to start again at the beginning?

The Prime Minister: I have been in the closest discussion with my right hon. Friend on this matter. I assure the House that we should propose this only if we felt, as we do, that we shall get more authoritative and speedier decisions in the Scottish matter than if we follow the existing procedure.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Since in many ways local government in Scotland is rather different from that in England, is not there a case for a special Royal Commission for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the case is unanswerable and that is why, in my statement, I said that there was to be a separate Royal Commission for Scotland.

Mr. Higgins: In view of the Labour Party's election promise that it would give early relief to ratepayers by transferring more of the cost of public services from the rates to the Exchequer, would the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House that this will not be delayed by the


statement he has made this afternoon? Further, would he refute the suggestion made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that it is impossible because of the economic situation? Is it not totally irrelevant to the economic situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is suspiciously like a speech. It is the kind of question I thought would have arisen on the second statement.

The Prime Minister: Since the question has been asked, I hope that I shall be allowed to answer it, Mr. Speaker.
First, I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about my right hon. Friend's speech at Hull. That referred to a different matter, not to rates. The hon. Gentleman must not be impatient. I have read the speech. I know exactly what my right hon. Friend said.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a rating relief Bill now going through the House. There is a second Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said many times, in preparation on the question of relations between central and local government finance, dealing specifically with the point made during and before the election. The hon. Gentleman must not think we shall be satisfied even then. We are already giving a great deal of thought to the longer-term problems of rating.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Prime Minister stated that there will be two separate Royal Commissions. Just how separate will they be? Will there be arrangements for liaison between the two of them? Does the Prime Minister appreciate that the special arrangements in Scotland have not always been advantageous to Scotland?

The Prime Minister: The basis of separation between them will be, roughly speaking, the River Tweed—[Laughter.]—and the rest of the Border, of course. With regard to liaison between them, which I think is a very serious and important point, whenever there have been inquiries proceeding—Royal Commissions or any others—where there was a need for co-ordination, that has been ensured. I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that everything necessary will be done, I am quite sure, to see that the two

Commissions have whatever liaison is appropriate on matters which cross the Tweed and the rest of the boundary. Hon. Members can certainly count on that. However, since the systems of local government and the problems are so different, it is right to have separate Royal Commissions.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Crossman. Statement.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION, ENGLAND

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about local government reorganisation in England.
In consequence of the decision just announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to appoint a Royal Commission, the review which is being carried out by the Local Government Commission for England will be discontinued.
The Commission has produced some valuable results within the limits open to it, and I would like to take this occasion to thank the Commission for all that it has done; but its terms of reference did not enable it to propose the changes either in structure or in boundaries which fully meet present-day needs. The Commission will not carry further the reviews it has begun of the North West and the South, or start work on the South East.
Most of the work it has completed will be carried through. Where decisions have been already announced on proposals by the Commission, the necessary orders will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible. Other proposals on which decisions have not yet been taken will be considered on their merits, in the light of the decision to appoint a Royal Commission.
Under the Local Government Act, 1958, each county council is required, once the work of the Local Government Commission is sufficiently advanced, to undertake a review of the county districts in their area. I intend to deal with county reviews already submitted to me, but I shall have to consider further what is to be done in the case of reviews not yet completed.
Legislation will be required to provide for winding up the work of the Local Government Commission and to make any necessary provision for the county reviews.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify a little what is to happen during the years during which the Royal Commission is undertaking its investigations? In particular, will all the new changes in boundaries and organisation which changing circumstances are always necessitating in local government be frozen, or will there be any method of making adjustments, large or small? Will the freeze on change inhibit reforms in local government finance such as the right hon. Gentleman is often talking about?
When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to tell the counties what they are to do in respect of their suspended review of county districts? He has just said that he will have to consider further what is to be done in the case of the county reviews. I want to know how long the right hon. Gentleman's further consideration will continue and when he will tell the counties which, he will realise, are halted in mid-review this afternoon by his statement.
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long he expects that this state of unhappy uncertainty over local government changes will last?

Mr. Crossman: I have, naturally, discussed the county reviews with the County Councils' Association and I have told it that the three reviews which are near readiness will continue. One has come to me already, namely, Shropshire, The two which are nearest—they are both near to inquiry—are Cornwall and Worcestershire. They will continue. That is definite. I will have the others looked at to see how near to completion they are, because I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I do not want this work to be lost or stopped. The last thing I want is to see a freeze.
I have been asked how long. I would say that the Royal Commission can do its work in not much more than two years. That is our view. I will explain why in a moment. I think that it can be done. Then the legislation will immediately follow, I hope. In this period I think

that we have plenty of work to do. We have a mass of decisions already to implement in Orders. I intend, wherever an inquiry has been held, to continue this to the point of decision and of Order. There is, therefore, a great deal of work which will go on. Minor reviews and and adjustments can continue exactly as they have done during the existence of the Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about financial reform. I have made it clear that the two Rating Bills which are now in process were designed to shore up an ancient building pending radical reconstruction. They are intended to last for the period while the Royal Commission works and before it recommends, because it is clear that if we want a radical review of local government the Royal Commission must consider local finance, and the kind of finance which is needed for the new reorganisation which will be recommended by the Royal Commission and, I hope, implemented by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why I hoped that the work could be done as fast as I have suggested. The reasons are twofold. First, during the months in which I have discussed the subject with local authorities I have found a remarkable readiness now to acquiesce in the necessity for a really radical overhaul. Those who care most about local government and have most deeply at heart the cause of local democracy are most anxious to see something radical done, which the Local Government Commission was denied doing by its terms of reference, which have constricted its work since 1958.
It is the absence of those constrictions in the new terms of reference which will enable the Royal Commission to carry through reforms which are demanded by everybody in counties and county boroughs who now sees the need for this drastic overhaul if local government is to become as efficient as it can be and to revive a democracy which is being, in a way, undermined by the ineffectiveness created by the relation of counties and county boroughs. This is why I believe that after all the work of the Local Government Commission and the Maud and Mallaby Committees, the time has come when decisions can be made, when the Royal Commission has reviewed the situation.

Mr. Dan Jones: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the recommendations already made by the Commission will be carried out? If so, will that procedure be carried out without delay?

Mr. Crossman: I certainly did not say that the recommendations would be carried out. I said that the recommendations of the Commission which have completed their inquiry stage will come to me and I will decide them and see that my decisions are implemented, because these are recommendations on which a decision has to be made. That I did say, yes.

Mr. Fell: Can the Minister answer a question about a local constituency? As the Royal Commission may recommend different terms of reference for the Local Government Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the case of part of my constituency of Great Yarmouth will now be held up?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misunderstanding. The Royal Commission will have a dual purpose. Although I shall not talk about its terms of reference, I can say what its function will be. It will be to formulate the principles of reconstruction and then itself to recommend the precise reconstruction so that the whole thing will be done in one process. I do not intend that there should be another Boundary Commission with a lapse of five years before one can get anything done. I cannot, therefore, answer the hon. Member's question about his constituency without prior notice.

Mr. Snow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who represent Staffordshire will have viewed the work of the Local Government Commission so far with something less than enthusiasm? Is he aware that his words that there will be no freeze upon existing reviews of county districts will be warmly welcomed? Will he bear in mind that especially where there are substantial movements of population, as are occurring at present in the West Midlands, in the overspill receiving areas, action should be expedited as far as possible?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: With regard to the district authorities' review by the

county councils, will the Minister give a complete undertaking that he will inform all those local authorities, at both district and county level, as soon as possible whether the review is to go ahead? There is great uncertainty about this.
Secondly, is the Minister aware that there is a close relationship between the work of the Local Government Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commission? Will he undertake that there will be no further alteration in the work of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission until he has made up his mind finally after the Royal Commission has reported?

Mr. Crossman: I would be a hazardous Minister if I were to say that about something which is no concern of mine. I can speak only of the work of the Local Government Commission. The other Commission is completely independent of me.
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about county reviews. I have given the counties, so to speak, decisions on the first, immediate issue. They will be given within a very short time, as I assured their representatives when I met them the other day, a firm decision on the rest of the review.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend let the House know how his statement will affect the reorganisation of local government on Tyneside? In view of the great importance that this should be seen in the context of regional development, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it needs to be looked at in those terms?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I will give an early decision on Tyneside. I have only just received the reactions of all the local authorities to my provisional proposal for a single-purpose borough for the area. When I have studied them, I will make my decision.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Can the Minister assure the House that the existence of the Royal Commission will not prevent the experimental schemes being carried out in special areas as put forward by the Hampshire County Council?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think that I can give that assurance. Indeed, I am


going to Warwickshire tomorrow to discuss with the Warwickshire County Council one of these experimental schemes.

Mr. Frederic Harris: In view of the fact that in the last two or three years we in what is now termed Greater London have gone through the whole system of reorganisation of local government, is it possible to eliminate Greater London from the terms of reference of the Royal Commission?

Mr. Crossman: That is obviously something which I have thought about carefully. As the hon. Member says, there has been a radical reshaping of local government in that area. My view is that it is most unlikely that it will be included in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, but I am not absolutely sure.

Mr. Duffy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that existing proposals for the West Riding of Yorkshire conurbation will still come before him? Is he aware that the Commission must be seized of the greatest urgency in its work and its proposals fearlessly adopted if Labour Governments are not to get a reputation for being soft on the subject of local government reform?

Mr. Crossman: I am not sure what the softness would be. In reply to the first part of the question, I have said that I have to consider each of these areas, and prima facie, since nearly all, or perhaps all, of the inquiries in Yorkshire have been completed, I see no reason why I should not be able to complete the process. It is my determination to do all we possibly can to get all that is good out of the work of the existing Commission.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister be good enough to give an assurance that any proposals made under Section 6(4) of the London Government Act for the transfer of part of a borough which is contiguous with a county to that county will be allowed to go forward: in other words, that representations submitted by people under that Section to go out of Greater London and into the adjacent county will be considered by the Minister?

Mr. Crossman: This matter is under consideration by my Ministry. I have consulted Greater London and the

boroughs. I cannot make a statement now, but I will do so in the near future.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Minister clear up two points which arise from his original answer to me? I understood him to say that during the period of the Royal Commission minor changes can continue. Does that include changes which have not yet been initiated, but which are proposed from now onwards?
Secondly, in his statement that the Royal Commission could be expected to report in the very quick time of two years, did the right hon. Gentleman take into account also the time that will be needed both for consideration of its report by the Government of the day and the preparation of the necessary legislation? Is he still satisfied that the Royal Commission will take only two years in the light of his own statement that it has both to formulate principles and to apply them, apparently, throughout the country?
Finally, can the Minister say when we will have an opportunity of debating the matter?

Mr. Crossman: It is a waste of time for the right hon. Gentleman to address his final question to me. The question of debate is a matter for the usual channels.
As to minor changes, again I want to be as helpful to the House as I can without going beyond what I can say with certainty. Where a voluntary change is agreed between a county and a county borough, I see no reason why these changes should not continue during the period. We shall continue in force the existing legislation, which allows those changes to take place. Where they are more than changes of that nature, I do not think that they will take place. Otherwise, I should be merely winding up the existing Commission but continuing its vast work.
I have calculated that to finish the work of the existing Commission in the North-West, South and South-East would, at the present pace of procedure, take six years. It would take four years even to do Lancashire. Therefore, what is really wrong with us today is a Commission which, through no fault of its own but partly because of its terms of reference and, even more, the intolerable procedural methods imposed upon it, has a


protraction of time and a waste of effort which denies the possibility of decision.
A Royal Commission freed from those limitations would, in my view, proceed faster over the whole country than the Boundary Commission, through no fault of its own, would have been able to proceed over the three remaining areas at its disposal.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how important this matter is, but we must move on.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to me, the right hon. Gentleman refused to give the assurance for which I asked—that the rights of the people who live on the edge of Greater London, and who are asking for transfer to counties under the London Government Act, would be safeguarded. Yet, in his statement, he said that legislation would be introduced for the winding up of the work of the Local Government Commission. Is it in order for a Minister to make a statement nullifying existing legislation without proposing to introduce new legislation for that purpose?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of political argument and not one for the Chair.

Mr. More: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that three counties are immediately affected by this statement, but that, with respect, you have not called any hon. Member from any of those areas?

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to bear with me. It is exceedingly difficult. As an old local government man myself, I know how interested are the majority of hon. Members who tried to put questions on the statement. I did my best to spread the questioning around. I am sorry if I failed.

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since Shropshire, Worcestershire and Cornwall are already faced with considerable dislocation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect that this is not a point of order. I understand that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) wishes to raise a point of order.

ORDER PAPER (MOTION AND AMENDMENT)

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order I wish to raise concerns today's Order Paper and, in particular, Motion No. 101.
[That this House would welcome an independent investigation to ascertain to what extent the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition on Rhodesia is determined by the fact that very many prominent Tories, including some 41 Members of Parliament, Peers, former Members of Parliament, and Ministers, have directorships of companies with financial interests in Rhodesia.]
I gave notice to the Table Office last night that I desired to place an Amendment to this Motion on the Order Paper. But this morning, when the Order Paper was printed, there were two errors. First, my Amendment mentioned the Senate, but not Mr. Smith. The second but far more important error, however, was that the Amendment appeared in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates). I would, therefore, be very obliged if the matter were put right as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point of order. I understood indirectly that it was to be raised. I must apologise to him and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Victor Yates) for the inconvenience and embarrassment which must have been caused to both of them by the confusion of their names.
I hope that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) will allow me to say, however, that, when I looked at the manuscript of his Amendment I found very great difficulty in deciphering the text, while I utterly failed to decipher the signature. Hon. Members can assist by either signing Motions legibly, or by printing their names after any ambiguous hieroglyphics.
Perhaps the House will allow me to use this opportunity to emphasise the printing difficulties which the current spate of early-day Motions is causing. In a memorandum submitted to the Publications and Reports Committee, and printed as a special Report last Session, it was pointed out that the volume of


early-day Motions had doubled as compared with the previous Session. Since then it has almost doubled again. We now have four times the quantity that existed in 1964.
As mentioned in the memorandum, the problem for the Table and the printers is not so much one of scale as of time. To meet the tight schedule, it is necessary to get the material ready in print for the morning, and the composing and marshalling work must be done throughout the night in a rush, with rapid checking whenever the pressure builds up. If I may speak for myself, I often think that it is a miracle that the Notices appear at all when I see the variety of handwriting sent to the printers.
On the subject of early-day Motions in particular, I might venture to express the hope that the House of Commons (Services) Committee may be able to examine the problem soon. If Motions continue to increase on the present scale, the House will run into worse difficulties. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express my appreciation of the way in which both the Table and the printers carry out each day what is a formidable task and of the fact that so singularly few errors occur.

Mr. William Yates: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. I am certain

that most hon. Members will respect and are grateful for what you have said and are also grateful to those who have to deal with the Papers which are under your direction. But you will, no doubt, have taken note that back-bench Members are, quite rightly, exerting their rights in pressing the cases of their constituencies or putting a curb on the Executive by using the method of the Order Paper by early-day Motions.
Therefore—and I venture to suggest that other hon. Members take note—I would not like to hear a hint of any suggestion that there should be any curtailment of the right of any private Member to table as many early-day Motions as he thinks fit, or as he thinks useful, or as he thinks becoming to the dignity of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member, as a keen Parliamentarian who protects the rights of back benchers almost as much as Mr. Speaker protects them, will not read into my statement more than is in it. The Chair never gives hints. No speech from the Chair must be taken as wishing to tamper with the rights of hon. Members to place on the Order Paper the Motions they think worthy of placing there. I have spoken of the physical difficulties and the need for better calligraphy.

Orders of the Day — ROAD SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.49 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In 1964, the latest complete year for which figures are available, 7,820 people in Great Britain were killed in road accidents and over 95,000 were seriously injured. In all, more than 380,000 people were road casualties. This was the highest number in our whole history. And of these, 60,000 were children under 15 years of age.
Despite intensive efforts during the past year to make the people more road safety conscious, the figures continue to rise. From January to November, 1965, 6 per cent. more children were killed on the roads than in the corresponding period of 1964. The percentage increase in casualties of all kinds was three per cent.
These figures do not include the Christmas period. It is true that the provisional casualty figures for the four days of the holiday showed a slight fall compared with 1964, but a total of 3,500 killed or injured in four days is hardly a cause for self-congratulation.
This suffering and tragedy are not inflicted on us by an enemy. We inflict them on ourselves. Perhaps that is why we tend to accept them so complacently. During all the five years of war, Hitler did not manage to kill as many civilians in Britain as have been killed on our roads since the war at the hands of our own citizens. This is something which lies within our own power to correct and we ought to bring to it the same dedication of mind and heart as we brought to the winning of the war.
If we do not, this country faces something like a holocaust in the next 10 to 20 years. Today, there are 13 million vehicles on our roads. It is estimated that by 1970 the figure will have risen by 40 per cent. and that by 1980 it will have doubled. It is true, thank heavens, that road casualties have not risen in the past at the same rate as motor traffic. Since 1962, there has been an overall fall of 6 per cent. in the casualty rate per 100 million vehicle miles.
But this is largely due to the decline in the use of the most vulnerable classes of vehicles, especially motor cycles. The casualty rate for each class of vehicle is rising. In due course the beneficial effect on the overall casualty rate of the decline in the use of two-wheeled vehicles is bound to be outweighed by the underlying upward trends. By 1970, if the casualty rate continues to fall only at the average rate of the past three years, the number of killed and injured on our roads may exceed 500,000, about 80,000 of them children. By 1980, the figure might be nearing 1 million.
This appalling prospect must surely make us all ready to stop and think afresh about our responsibilities. We shall never reduce these figures unless we achieve a profound change in public attitudes. Recognising this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), my predecessor in what is sometimes called the "hot seat", gave a great deal of thought and study to this problem. He reached the conclusion that we must make a two-pronged attack on the hazards of the road. These were outlined in the White Paper which he published last December and are now embodied in the Bill which I am now presenting to the House, and in doing so I am conscious of how much I owe to the work which he did in this field.
The Bill falls into two distinct parts. The second, which deals with the condition of goods vehicles, will, I suspect, be relatively non-controversial, but the first, which deals with the condition of people, will, I gather, be very controversial indeed. We are all now ready to condemn lorries which go on the roads mechanically unfit. We support spot checks designed to discover mechanical defects, or overloading, which may not be immediately visible. But spot checks on ourselves designed to discover whether we are fit to drive—ah! that is a very different thing.
I frankly admit that Part I of this Bill proposes far-reaching changes in our law, but I do not apologise for this. I hope to convince the House that the methods which we propose are the only way of making an impact on one of the contributory factors in road accidents, drink while driving.
Of course, no one would pretend that this is the only, or even the major, cause of road accidents. Half our motorists do not drink at all when driving, and we should be very grateful to them. Others drink only very moderately. But there is a minority whose social irresponsibility endangers all the rest, and it could be a bigger minority than we yet realise, because we now know that drink impairs the ability to drive long before that impairment becomes visible. It does so by acting on the brain and central nervous system and research carried out both in this country and abroad has established beyond any reasonable doubt that the risk of accident increases as the concentration of alcohol in the body's tissues rises.
Until recently, it has not been possible to estimate the proportion of accidents which would not have happened if none of the drivers involved had been drinking, but recent studies in Canada, Czechoslovakia and the United States, and particularly that made by Indiana University, have shown that the average risk of being involved in accidents for drivers as a whole increases as the concentration of alcohol rises above about 40 milligrammes of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood. At 80 milligrammes or more it is about twice as great and at 160 milligrammes or more it is twenty times as great.
Now, of course, individuals are affected by alcohol in different ways varying according to age, driving experience, drinking habits, and so on, but the evidence shows that at about a level of 80 mg. virtually all drivers are seriously affected. It also shows that if it were possible to dissuade all drivers from drinking while driving, there would be a reduction of accidents of between 5 and 9 per cent. Studies carried out by the Road Research Laboratory in this country confirm these findings and if we apply American results to British casualties we can see that we could prevent between 18,000 and 32,000 casualties by enforcing a blood-alcohol limit of 80 mg. Equally important, we could reduce the extent of injury where accidents occur, for we know that accidents in which drink is a factor tend to be the more serious.
Under the present law, a driver is guilty of an offence if his ability to drive properly is "for the time being impaired" by alcohol and the courts

must have regard to any evidence showing the proportion of alcohol in the driver's blood or body. But the law gives the courts no guidance on the degree of impairment to be expected at different blood-alcohol levels and, except where an accident has occurred, prosecutions are rarely brought in this country at concentrations of less than 150 mg.
Moreover, we all know full well how many drivers on this charge are acquitted. As the White Paper points out, in the last quarter of 1964 in the Metropolitan Police District one third of the drivers committed for trial who had been shown by urine analysis to have blood-alcohol concentrations over 200 mg. were acquitted and nearly half of those with concentrations between 150 and 200 mg.
For all those reasons it is clear that, if we are to stop people from driving when their ability is impaired, we must define this condition much more precisely. That is why, in Clause 1, we create the new offence of driving or attempting to drive, when the proportion of alcohol in the blood exceeds the prescribed limit, and the prescribed limit is described in Clause 6 as 80 mg. per 100 millilitres of blood.
Clause 6 empowers me to vary this limit by Order, subject to the affirmative Resolution of both Houses, in the light of experience. This will help to meet the views of those who think that the limit is either too high or too low. The operation of the Act will help us to judge this, but, acting on the recommendation of the B.M.A. and bearing in mind the views of the Medical Research Council, the Government believe that the level which we have in the Bill is about right. At this level of 80 mg., these two medical authorities agree that the ability to drive of the great majority of drivers would be impaired, even if the drivers were not aware of it.
Of course, it is true that alcohol affects people in different ways, but, by taking the concentration of alcohol in the blood as our measurement, we allow for a large part of those differences because some people can drink much more than others before reaching a particular concentration—and it is the concentration which matters, because it is this which affects the brain and the central nervous system. Of course, it is also true that everyone's driving ability is not impaired to the


same extent at the same blood-alcohol level.
Young people and those who are not used to drinking are more affected at low concentrations than those who are older or more regular drinkers. But beyond a certain point everyone's ability is impaired to an unacceptable degree and evidence shows that this is the case above a level of 80 milligrams. This is a fairly generous limit from the point of view of a man or woman who enjoys a drink. If they have had a good meal and are drinking in a leisurely way, and are used to drinking, it could take six pints of beer or six large whiskies to produce the prescribed limit.
I am not suggesting that this is a safe limit for everyone to drink up to. On the contrary, I want to stress that 80 milligrams is a limit above which all drivers, including even the most hardened drinkers, are an unacceptable risk to other road users.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Before the right hon. Lady leaves this point, I am sure that she would not unintentionally wish to give the wrong impression. She said that a person might drink as much as six pints or six whiskies. Will she also agree that for a woman weighing about seven stones it would mean one whisky?

Mrs. Castle: I am trying to make it clear that I am stretching this to the limit to show that it is a generous limit. That is why it must be the maximum limit. This does not mean that everyone is able to drink up to this because the effect is different in different cases. We have tried to strike a fair balance and to those who think that the limit is too high I would say that it is better, when we are making a great step forward in our legislation and introducing an entirely new type of offence, to start with a level which rules out any possible injustice. I should have thought that this would be universally acceptable. We can adjust the limit later in the light of experience. In the meantime, the impairment rule of the present law will still apply at concentrations below this level if there is clear evidence that ability to drive properly is impaired.
Clause 1 also makes important changes in our legislation about the "in charge"

cases. Clearly, the new offence must also apply to these cases, but if it does then two consequences follow. We want to encourage as many people as possible to stop driving as soon as they feel that they may have exceeded the prescribed limit. The purpose of this Bill is not punitive; it is preventive. I do not want to persecute motorists, or to catch them out. I want to stop them driving when it is not wise for them to do so. As the law on "in charge" cases now stands, the motorist has to establish two defences: first, that there is no likelihood of his driving while in an impaired state; and, secondly, that he has not done so since he became impaired.
The second limb of the statutory defence would clearly discourage the motorist from stopping, with the additional risk of being found by the police to be "in charge". Moreover, under the new law the motorist would have to prove that he had not driven since he committed the new offence of exceeding the prescribed blood-alcohol level and this would be more difficult for him to do. For both of these reasons we have decided that the interests of road safety would be best served by removing the need to establish the second line of defence in "in charge" cases, though the motorist will still have to prove that there was no likelihood of his driving.
It is true that the motorist ought not to have driven at all in that state, but I repeat that I am not out to punish for the sake of punishing. I am out to prevent accidents. For this reason random checks, to which I shall now refer, will not apply to the stationary motorist, although the police will be able to take action, as under the present law, if the driver is visibly impaired.
I now turn to Clause 2, which I know full well, is the most controversial in the whole Bill. The question we have to ask, assuming that we all accept the creation of this new offence, is how do we propose to enforce it? This is an entirely new offence and I would have thought that, by assumption, the old methods of enforcement would not be appropriate. The new offence depends solely upon having an excessive concentration of alcohol in the blood. A driver does not have to be visibly impaired, he does not have to be driving oddly, or to have had an accident. For this reason, this new


law could not be adequately enforced by relying on the existing police power to act only when a driver is clearly and visibly impaired. How are the police to detect that the new offence has been committed?
I think that most people accept that there should be roadside checks at which the preliminary test can be made by means of a breath-testing device. This is reliable enough to indicate that there is a strong presumption that the blood-alcohol limit has been exceeded and that there ought to be a further blood or urine test at the police station. I know that there is strong disagreement about the method of conducting these roadside tests. How should the police proceed? By stopping any motorist at random or on suspicion that the new offence may have been committed?
The Government have given a great deal of thought to this point, and since taking office I, too, have given it additional thought. We have come to the conclusion that it would be far less invidious and less offensive to the individual to be stopped completely at random, without any stigma being attached to it, rather than to be stopped because he has been seen coming out of a public house, or even when he has committed a traffic offence, which is one suggestion that has been put to me. The sort of offence such as jumping the lights or crossing a white line are examples. In such cases a driver may not have been drinking at all.
If we have preliminary tests on suspicion, and this is what these amount to, then the presumption is that the driver has drunk more than he should and that is why he is being asked to take a breath test. Anyone seeing him undergoing the test will draw that conclusion. In the case of the random test there can be no such presumption. Anyone can be stopped at any time under any circumstances and be asked to take a breath test. Passers-by seeing that test being conducted will know that this is a decent citizen collaborating in carrying out a social duty in the interests of road safety.
If we want a deterrent, then there could be no more effective way than for people to realise that there will always be a possibility of their being asked to undertake a random test. I know that there are strong feelings about this, and we

shall debate it fully in committee. But to those who maintain that there is a great principle of individual liberty involved, I say that there is no difference in principle between random breath tests and random tests on goods vehicles.
There may be some cases where the driver has good reason for refusing a roadside test, for example a doctor hurrying to an urgent case. Clause 2 enables him to establish a "reasonable excuse." But if he could not satisfy the court that his excuse was reasonable, it would clearly undermine the whole enforcement of the Bill if he were to go scot-free. The penalty provided for unreasonable refusal in this Clause is a fine not exceeding £50.
Clause 3 outlines the procedure to be followed when the result of the preliminary breath test has been positive and the driver has been taken to the police station to provide a specimen for the laboratory test. It is the result of this test, and not of the breath test, which will be given in court. We are, therefore, anxious that the laboratory test should be as accurate and reliable as possible. It is on this test that the establishment of guilt or innocence depends. That is why Clause 3(6) provides that the driver should first be asked to undergo a blood test as this is generally held to be the most reliable for this purpose.
This is not a gruesome affair these days. A perfectly adequate specimen of blood can be provided quickly and painlessly by a mere finger prick. To safeguard the motorist, we provide that the specimen must be taken by a doctor. But if for any reason a driver does not want to give a specimen of blood he may provide a specimen of urine. If there are difficulties about this he can again be asked for a specimen of blood.
Since these tests are crucial for establishing whether the new offence has been committed, refusal to provide a specimen of either blood or urine must obviously carry the same penalty as if the person concerned had been found to have exceeded the prescribed blood-alcohol level unless he can show reasonable grounds for refusing the test. Otherwise, the guilty person could escape conviction merely by refusing to give a specimen.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: What will be the position of a person who refuses to take a breathalyser test, but


elects to go straight away to the police station? Will he be allowed to do so?

Mrs. Castle: Yes. If he said, "I do not want to take the breathalyser test, but I will willingly give a specimen for a laboratory test," the law would be satisfied.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: What would be reasonable grounds for a refusal, in the right hon. Lady's view?

Mrs. Castle: It would be for the courts to decide and for the person concerned fully to explain the circumstances. I do not think that we can lay down any rigid definition, and we have not attempted to do so in the Bill, because this is a matter for the courts to decide.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Clause 2(3) makes provision for a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen of breath. Subsection (5) provides that if a person fails to give a specimen of breath when required to do so by a constable, the constable may arrest him. The subsection does not say anything about what happens if he fails to provide it without reasonable excuse. According to the Clause, even if he has reasonable excuse, the constable could still arrest him.

Mrs. Castle: That is not our reading of the Clause, but this is a point which should be examined in Committee. Clearly, we want to deal with anomalies which sometimes slip in owing to a Bill's wording. I think that probably my hon. Friend has misread the Clause.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would clarify one point. Will the person taken to the police station have the option to undergo either a blood or a urine test?

Mrs. Castle: Yes; that is made clear in the Clause. I think that the motoring organisations will advise drivers to insist on a blood test, certainly to ask for it, because it is the most accurate and reliable, and therefore most in their interest. But if they have some objection to a blood test and prefer to give a urine sample, this will be acceptable.
An additional safeguard in Clause 3 provides that a person who has not had

the opportunity of taking a preliminary test at the roadside must be given that opportunity at the police station. Therefore, an innocent person can clear himself by undergoing the breath test at the police station if he wants to and then he would not be liable to the penalties for refusing or failing to provide a specimen of blood or urine.
I need not detain the House by dealing at length with Clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 applies the provisions to vehicles and persons in the service of the Crown and members of the Armed Forces. Clause 4 provides the same periods of disqualification for the new offences as for the parallel impairment offences under the existing Law. It also puts the new offences on the same footing as the old ones for the purpose of higher penalties on second conviction. I have already referred to Clause 6. So much for Part I of the Bill.
As I have said, Part II does not arouse so much, if any, controversy. For a long time the public have been demanding vigorous action to improve the state of goods vehicles on our roads. This concern has been aroused by the reports of accidents in which defective lorries have been involved and by the outcome of the spot checks on goods vehicles which my Ministry has been carrying out under the present law.
Here again, I have no wish to exaggerate. It would be quite wrong to suggest that our roads are full of "killer" lorries. Of the 139,000 vehicles which were inspected in the 12 months up to 30th September last, only one in 10 was in a sufficiently dangerous condition to warrant being taken off the roads immediately. Another 36 per cent. were found to have sufficient defects to warrant a delayed prohibition notice without being dangerous. But I am sure that we would all agree that 14,000 dangerously defective lorries are 14,000 too many. The serious point is that the figures show no improvement over the previous 12 months.
We must tackle this problem in a more far-reaching way. I know that the operators' own associations, which are fully aware of their responsibility to the public, welcome the steps which the Government propose to take. The first need, we suggest, is to submit heavy lorries to


regular and more stringent tests. When compulsory annual testing was introduced in 1960 its operation was limited to vehicles over 10 years old and to motor cycles, private cars and light goods vehicles of less than 30 cwt. unladen weight. Since then, the age of vehicles for which annual testing becomes compulsory has been successively reduced, and now it applies to vehicles over five years old. But heavy goods vehicles have remained completely exempt. The Government believe that the time has come to include them, and in Clause 8 we have taken power by regulation to compel all heavy goods vehicles, of whatever age, to be tested annually.
This step is long overdue, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton for having put this in hand so quickly after taking office. The previous Government gave frequent assurances to the House that they were considering what should be done, but no firm plans were ever announced, and, from what was said in the House, it is clear that they were aware of the difficulties of attempting to fit the testing of heavy goods vehicles into the present testing scheme for private cars under which the testing takes place in private garages.
After careful examination and consultation with all the appropriate organisations, we have decided that to carry out this testing in private garages would be quite impossible. The testing of heavy lorries, particularly the very heavy ones like articulated vehicles, needs special facilities and equipment which private garages, however competent they may be, simply do not possess; nor, by and large, do they have the capacity. That is why we have decided to use and build special Government stations for this purpose for which we seek the power in Clause 21. We estimate that 60 to 70 stations will be needed if vehicles are not to have to travel too great distances. As the Financial Memorandum sets out, the capital cost is estimated at about £8 million, spread over a number of years.
Some sites have already been chosen, and we are pressing ahead with the preparatory work with the aim of having a nationwide chain of stations established by the end of next year. We have assured the garage trade that we do not intend to steal its staff to man our own testing

stations. Instead, we have started discussions with the Ministry of Labour about recruitment and training of the extra staff which not only we but the trade itself will need if vehicles are to be maintained to the higher standards that we simply must have.
The proposed industrial training board for the road transport industry and for the motor vehicle repair trade will be of great help here. Both the capital and the operating costs of the testing scheme will be recouped from fees varying with the size of the vehicle, up to, say, £5 for a large vehicle. We shall certainly keep in touch with the interested organisations in working out the details.
That development enables us to tackle another very important road hazard, the overloading of goods vehicles. That is something which, under the present law, we have not been able to deal with effectively. To do it, we must, first, establish the maximum load at which it is safe for a particular vehicle to operate and then show that weight by a plate fixed to the vehicle. That will not only give us greater safeguards over braking but will also help reduce the congestion on our roads caused by the over-burdened lorry which infuriates every other driver by crawling up hills and holding up everything else on the road in the meantime.
Clauses 7 and 8 give me power to fix these maximum weights and to make plating compulsory. The aim is that when a particular vehicle is first tested mechanically, it will be plated at the same time and the weights shown on the plating certificate and the plate will remain in force for the rest of the vehicle's life. Thereafter, the vehicle will be subject to the Ministry's spot checks for overloading, just as for mechanical defects, and we intend to intensify those spot checks. We shall need extra weighbridges for the weighing, and the Ministry intends to operate about 100 of its own as well as making arrangements for using existing ones.
Clause 8 must be read in conjunction with existing powers of Section 64 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960. I intend to extend the construction and use requirements under that Section by making it an offence to use a vehicle on the roads above its plated weight, and Clause 22(1)


of the Bill increases the penalty for overloading from £50 to £200.
I have seen it estimated in one of the motoring journals that a lorry can earn its owner about £1,000 a year extra profit through systematic overloading. We believe that the knowledge that both the owner and the driver can be fined £200 for this offence may make the owner think twice about taking the risk. Moreover, loading above the new maximum plated weights will now be one of the factors which are taken into account by the licensing authority when deciding whether to revoke, curtail or suspend carriers' licences.
Eventually, plating may apply to all goods vehicles, but we intend to start with the heavier ones. Having built the Government testing stations and trained staff, we shall be ready to start annual testing and plating of existing vehicles by 1968. This will be done by groups of vehicles, starting with the oldest and by 1970 we hope that all the heavier vehicles will have been covered, irrespective of age.
In the meantime, we shall be preparing to deal with new vehicles under the type approval scheme outlined in Clauses 9 to 12. Under that system the Ministry will be empowered to inspect and approve a sample vehicle of a type which is about to come into production. The manufacturer will then issue with every subsequent vehicle of that type a certificate to the effect that it is of a type which has been officially approved, and it will then be an offence to put a new vehicle on the road without such a certificate. If the vehicle is not of a mass-produced type, then it can be given an individual approval certificate.
This new system will enable the Ministry inspector, when approving a lorry, to allocate plated weights to it, and the manufacturer will be able to give plates to identical lorries subsequently produced. The plates will rank as officially approved without the need for each vehicle to be inspected.
But the system will also have other very important advantages. It will enable us to check that our requirements about construction are being met. Some of these—protection against excessive noise, for example—have proved very difficult to enforce effectively under the present law. The type approval system will enable

us to tackle them where they can be best enforced, at the manufacturing stage. We shall also be able to incorporate the higher braking standards which my working party has been studying and on which I hope to issue new regulations shortly.
Here again, I want to stress that in working out the details I shall keep in the closest consultation with the manufacturers and other interested bodies. I also want to stress that type approval will be granted against requirements explicitly set out in the Regulations. There will be no question of Ministry officials rejecting vehicles because they do not like the look of them. Clause 11 provides for appeals to the Minister, who can appoint an assessor to assist in hearing them.
It will not be possible to introduce the new scheme all at once. We may at the outset be able to deal with only those features of a vehicle which are relevant to its plated weight—for example, the brakes—bringing in other features of vehicle design step by step. I hope that the scheme will be got under way by the end of 1969, when we plan to have completed the plating of all existing vehicles. If the scheme works well for goods vehicles, I hope eventually that it will be extended to other vehicles, including private cars, though that would need fresh legislation.
All this is a big contribution to road safety, but by itself it is not enough. There is no substitute for systematic inspection and maintenance of their vehicles by the operators themselves. I fully admit that some operators provide adequately for this, but the associations themselves—the Road Haulage Association and the Traders' Road Transport Association—would be the first to agree that a substantial proportion of operators do not. The associations have done all that they can to impress their members with the need for improving the standards in the industry. They have set up maintenance advisory committees in most traffic areas to advise and assist their members on this, and the T.R.T.A. has initiated a maintenance inspection scheme of its own, which I welcome. But I am sure that it realises that it is to a large extent preaching to the converted. What we need is Government action to compel those who will not listen to come into line.
In Clause 17, therefore, I am empowered to make regulations requiring all users of goods vehicles to put into effect an adequate system of regular vehicle inspection and maintenance and to see that records of the inspections are kept and are available for inspection.
Clause 19 of the Bill follows the announcement made by my predecessor last June of his intention to reintroduce special licences and tests for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. The scheme was suspended during the war and has never been revised. I am sure that we would all agree that it should be now.
The majority of heavy goods vehicle drivers have maintained high standards and they have built up a good reputation for themselves and their industry. But there is a minority which has let the industry down, as some of the accidents that have worried us all have shown. Besides that, heavy goods vehicles are developing more and more sophisticated control systems and these clearly demand a more advanced and more stringent test than the learner driver test, which is all that is needed at present. I am sure that the House will welcome the Clause.
There are many details of the Bill on which I have not had time to touch and which can be thoroughly examined in Committee. There are many other aspects of road safety on which we are working outside the context of the Bill. But the two parts which I have described are the most urgent steps on which we must concentrate and they will powerfully reinforce our armoury to protect users of the roads.
I repeat that our aim is not to persecute the motorist or the road haulier. Our aim is to encourage a new sense of our responsibility to each other when we use what is, after all, a potential instrument of death or injury. The Government must sustain and reinforce the good social behaviour of the majority, and I hope that this afternoon the House will give us the powers to enable us to do so,

5.31 p.m.

Sir Martin Redmayne: The right hon. Lady made a most eloquent appeal for an urgent reduction in road casualties, and I hope that any criticism of the Bill in detail which I may express this afternoon will not be taken as

evidence that we do not wholeheartedly support that appeal and its objective. Indeed, it would be most improper if any such suggestion were made.
The Minister has fully explained Parts II and III of the Bill. I had some points to raise on those parts, but she has answered a number of them. We were very late starting, and I think it would be better not to take up the time of the House by commenting on them. There are minor points for Amendment, and, of course, we shall have plenty of time for this in Committee. I hope, therefore, that the House will excuse me and understand that this does not mean that I am minimising the importance of Parts II and III. I turn now to the far more difficult matter, as I see it, of drink and driving, and in dealing with this subject I shall try hard not to become submerged in a sea of medical, legal and statistical jargon, in which I have swum for the last few days. In a word, I shall try to take a plain man's view, because I am sure the Minister will agree that it is the plain man who has to see the need for and justice of the Bill in whatever form it eventually reaches the Statute Book.
I do not oppose the principle of the Bill, nor indeed will we oppose any constructive and reasoned attempt to increase road safety and lessen the toll of road accidents, but the House must be sure that the methods which we use to achieve these objectives are right and that in no circumstances are reasonable people living sensible lives overridden by restrictions and controls which are either unnecessary or, indeed, counterproductive in what they seek to achieve.
The basis of the White Paper was the Indiana Study, and I want to say a word or two about it. The White Paper, leading from that study, claims that there could be a 6 per cent. reduction in road accidents if all who drank ceased to drive, but the House must note—I am not decrying the value of this Report—that it was based on breathalyser tests and not on direct blood tests. The breathalyser test has been rejected by the Government as exact evidence, and therefore it would not be wise to quote any of the figures of that Report, or indeed of the White Paper, too precisely. It is all good guidance, but it is not precise guidance.
I want to make a second point, and that is in respect of Table 3 of the Indiana Report, produced as Table II of the White Paper, although in slightly more graphic form. Table 3 is an "Estimation of the proportion of drivers whose involvement in accidents was attributable to alcohol." It shows a figure of 6·21 per cent., which is the figure brought into the White Paper, but I think the House must note—and it is only fair to note—that nearly half that figure, 2·52 per cent., is accounted for by those whose alcohol content was estimated at the remarkable figure of 160 milligrams, a level at which they could scarcely claim that they were not simply drunk. They are adequately covered by the 1960 Act, although prosecutions under that Act have been insufficiently successful, as the Minister said, and I do not argue that they will not be more adequately caught by the Bill, and so much the better. On that we are agreed.
But the fact that half the 6 per cent. is in this class of excessive drinkers is a strong reason for saying that the House should not clutch too easily at the 6 per cent. saving of accidents in assessing the effect of the Bill in respect of the great majority of those who drink and drive, nor assume—and this is important—that that majority play as big a part in the problem as the compulsive drinker, the addict, and it is the addict, the man who is in the top bracket, who must be the first target of the law.
I do not think that I need waste the time of the House by discussing things which are agreed between us. It is obvious now that the blood test will provide the best available evidence that we can get, and I think it can be agreed that the level recommended by the B.M.A. is the one which we should support.
The Minister stressed the remarkable differences in the effect of alcohol as between person and person, between different groups of persons, and indeed in respect of any one person in any different situation. Without wishing to reprove the Minister, I think it is a pity that she mentioned even one figure of equivalent, glass or tot, or whatever it is, because it is vitally important that all who have to tackle this subject from a personal point of view should never assume that so many drinks are safe and so many are

not, because if we do that we may have an unpleasant surprise.
In all these matters—and I say this without offence—the White Paper can be accused of being a little selective. It tends to conceal the fact that drivers with an alcohol content of more than 80 mg. are in a very small minority. The Grand Rapids survey puts it at 1·5 per cent. of the totality of drivers tested, and the House will have noted a recent survey by the Automobile Association which, interestingly enough—it was not scientific, but it was a poll—showed that 50 per cent. of all drivers are either abstainers or say that they make a point of not consuming drink when they drive. Added to that, there are a large number of drivers who drink but who are capable of conducting themselves moderately in accordance with their habit and their constitution. Of these people, a large percentage are those who are likely to be favourably affected by propaganda, and indeed to be sharply affected by the existence of reasonably punitive legislation. They are by far the largest majority, but it is the small minority, the more or less compulsive drinkers, with whom we have to deal.
Before I come to the main burden of my speech, I want to deal briefly with some points on which I should be grateful for assurances from the Minister if they can be given today, or at least careful consideration in Committee. I agree that some of them would be of lesser importance if Clause 2(1), which deals with random checks, was drastically amended.
Clause 2(3) which deals with the failure to provide a specimen, or to stop, with liability to a fine on conviction on either charge, has caused much misgiving. It seems very sweeping, and most of that misgiving would be removed at once if the random checks were stopped. But I have to agree, and it is with reluctance that I do so, that if the Bill is not amended the argument for making it an offence to refuse the test or to refuse to stop is unanswerable. The Clause would be ineffective without it, but the fact is that that argument stands only because the system of random checks is wrong, and, therefore, one wrong creates another. If random checks are dropped and a condition is substituted that a constable must have reasonable cause for his


actions, I should happily agree that refusal should be an offence.
However, whichever way that argument goes, I must point out that many people have written to me expressing their concern at the stopping of drivers—especially of women—on lonely roads by what may appear to be police in uniform, but which may be a trap, and has on occasion been a trap. It seems certain that a test carried out by any method must clearly be seen to be the work of the police; there must be recognisable lighted signs on the police cars fully in evidence. I do not believe that any check of this sort should ever be made—nor can there be any reason for its ever being made—on a deserted road.
Subsection (4) raises the question of the accuracy of the preliminary breathalyser test. I shall return to that question, because it relates closely to random checks. I want to ask a specific point about breathalyser tests. If a driver so wishes, will he be entitled to check the reading or to ask for a second test on the spot if he thinks that the first was wrongly performed? I shall show that it is quite easy to perform these tests wrongly and to produce incorrect results.
Under the provisions of subsection (5), a constable has power to arrest a suspect who refuses a test if he has
reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his body.
I do not know what the Home Secretary thinks about that drafting, or what any lawyer would think about it. It is certainly nebulous. It will be supported by the usual sort of statement that the constable noticed the smell of alcohol, or that the accused appeared confused. We can envisage a situation arising in which a motorist has got across the constable and there has been a certain fraying of tempers, on both sides, in which case the constable might well be tempted to invent an excuse.
What is the position if, after such an arrest following a refusal to take a test, it turns out that the victim—who admittedly has been pretty awkward—has a minimal quantity of alcohol in his blood? I am not sure whether it is good law, but it seems to be good common sense, that that man has reason to claim that he has been wrongfully arrested.
Clause 3(6,b) allows the option of providing a specimen of urine provided it is produced within an hour. The danger here is that the Bill specifies a concentration of alcohol of 107 mg. in urine as being the equivalent of 80 mg. in blood. The Minister will be aware that the B.M.A. has reported that this conversion factor is only an average and does not apply at all constantly either as between individuals or as between different states of those individuals at any one time.
If this is to be—as it must be—the only evidence submitted to the court, convictions will be wrongfully secured. Admittedy, others may escape, but we must consider the question of wrongful convictions. The B.M.A. recommends that a second and separate sample of urine is desirable, but this may not be obtainable within the hour specified in the Bill. We must study that point carefully in Committee.
Clause 6 also provides that a doctor must be present for the purpose of taking blood, but since evidence of impairment based on a clinical examination is no longer relevant it would appear that the police are under no compulsion to allow a clinical examination in any circumstances. Although I know little on this point, I am advised that a driver may be suffering from a medical condition which either simulates alcoholic intoxication or affects his ability to understand what is required of him by the police at that moment. It is put to me that it is essential that the doctor or the patient should be entitled to request a clinical examination in such circumstances.
Another point that has been fairly widely referred to concerns the argument that the police should not seek to obtain specimens from patients in hospital unless they use the services of a police doctor, with the consent of the hospital doctor in charge of the case.
I now come to the question of the accuracy of the clinical result, whether of the blood test or the urine test. That is separate from the question of the inaccuracy of the urine content figure. Conviction under the Bill depends on the blood ur urine test, to the exclusion of all other evidence. It is therefore imperative to ensure that the courts are given figures which they can accept without question. These figures must contain an


allowance for possible error, in accordance with the recommendations of the B.M.A. In Sweden, where the law is notoriously repressive, this allowance is about 15 mgms., and I would not have thought that any smaller allowance should be accepted in this country.
The last of my miscellaneous points concerns the Minister's power to submit new Regulations. I hope that she will agree right away that there is no question of drafting new Regulations setting out different levels of blood alcohol without the fullest consultation with the interested parties—the B.M.A. and so forth—because that would be a very big step.
The most important part of the Bill from my point of view is that which deals with the random check. I want, first, to say something about the breathalyser. I have an Alcotest in my pocket, which I believe is the one most likely to be used. I do not propose to display it, because that would be against the rules of the House, although I believe that many hon. Members would be interested to see it. I want to quote from the leaflet which is packed with the Alcotest.
First of all, it claims that the result of a comparison between the Alcotest and a specimen blood test shows an accuracy of over 95 per cent. But in another part of the paper headed "Results of the test" it says:
The accuracy of the results depends on the fulfilment of the conditions of test given above.
I want it to be fully understood that I am not trying to belittle this machine or to make a mock of it, but these are matters which will require thinking about. The conditions are as follows:
It is therefore essential that at least 15 minutes should elapse between the drinking of alcohol and the taking of the Alcotest.
We all know that. Some authorities say that the period should be 25 minutes, and I shall be interested to hear which figure will be accepted by the Minister. The leaflet goes on to say that
The time taken, and the number of exhalations required to inflate the bag, is of significance. In practice it is not possible to inflate the bag in less than 10 seconds because of the resistance of the testing tube. A prolonged inflation time or repeated attempts at inflation give a false evaluation because of the increased proportion of tidal air in the expired sample.

I take it that that refers to quick gulps of fresh air. A person blows into the bag and when it is full the air is expelled by pressure back through the chemicals. It goes on to say:
The time of inflation of the bag should be 15 seconds plus or minus 3 seconds and the bag should be inflated by one breath only.
That is not very easy for flustered or nervous people. I am not belittling the instrument, but it is not easy to get hold of. Some of us—I say "us" as if I expect to be constantly found to be a guilty party—will regrettably become familiar with it and, therefore, perform these functions quite easily, but I do not see why we should all become familiar with it without good cause.
That leads me into my point about the random checks. Before I leave the subject of accuracy, I am told that the inventor claims about 5 per cent. false positive reactions, that is, reactions over the level, and 5 per cent. false negatives, although other users report a wider variation. It is therefore clear that the error inherent in the instrument when used for tests on a random basis, that is, with the great majority of people, who are likely to have less than an 80 blood content—98½ per cent. of drivers, according to the Indiana test—creates at least the lively possibility of obtaining a number of false positive reactions.
Even if only one in a hundred or one in a thousand people are affected, it is important. In such cases, following a random test, drivers who have not given any cause for suspicion, either by their driving or by their behaviour, must be taken to a police station and subjected to further unpleasant ordeals like blood or urine tests. Going to a police station under suspicion is, strangely enough, not really happily accepted by a great number of law-abiding people. It is a serious matter, and they may have to go simply because the machine is not sufficiently accurate.
Further, having taken these tests, they will not know the result for two or three days. One can imagine some perfectly ordinary person who has been to a party and who was most careful all evening and was sure that he was all right. He runs into the check and takes the test and is unlucky enough to have a false positive reading. For two or three days he has to endure the not inconsiderable agony


of wondering whether he will suffer the disgrace—it will become more and more of a disgrace as the Bill bites—of being charged with being drunk.
I am not saying what happens to him in the end: he will be all right, and no doubt the test will be all right, but this will still worry people very much. I wonder whether the Minister wants to put any of her fellow creatures in that beastly situation of uncertainty without good cause.
I should like to look at the practicability of random sampling. Presumably the procedure will be the same as for vehicle testing: the police will draw vehicles off the road as their patrols can best manage it and the majority of vehicles in the traffic flow will proceed. I doubt whether any test which I have described will take less than a minute. Perhaps the time could be reduced if the instrument were practically stuck into one's mouth like a baby's dummy, but some care will have to be taken and drivers will have to be told how to use the instrument. If good relations with the police are to be maintained the operation will have to be conducted with tact and politeness, so each test will be fairly slow.
Therefore, the number of vehicles handled will not be very great. What happens with a positive reaction? I hope that these points have been studied in the Ministry, because it will be tremendously important for public relations. Will a driver be told to wait while others are tested, sitting miserably by the side of the road until somebody bothers to take him to a police station, or will he be whisked off to the police station in a vehicle? If the tests are as successful as the Minister hopes, there will have to be a vehicle or two available for this purpose. The driver will not be able to drive his own car, although he has already driven it quite successfully and capably. The fact that the breathalyser gives an adverse result means that he is potentially unsafe.
Another point which arises out of the 15 to 25 minutes delay which there must be before a breathalyser test is taken is that it is important that each driver should be specifically asked by the police whether he has had a drink during the last 25 minutes. That must be done. If not, if he takes the test, it proves adverse and he says, "Of course, it is wrong, because

I have had a drink within the last five or ten minutes", the police will then be prejudiced against him. If he is asked that question, it puts him in an awkward situation, because if he says, unwisely—having had a drink within the last 15 or 20 minutes—that he has not, he runs the grave risk of an inaccurate positive reading, which he could not escape. If he says, "Yes, I had a drink five or ten minutes ago" he has to wait until the rest of the 25 minutes has passed.
In these conditions, the number of drivers tested as a proportion of those on the road will not be very great and, as I have said before, it must be constantly borne in mind that only 1·5 per cent. of those tested—about one or two in every hundred—are likely to show a true positive reading. In the meantime the traffic rolls by, and who is to say where the one or two per hundred are in respect of any check? I am not much of a gambling man—

Mr. Ivor Richard: I have been following the right hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and it is a most reasoned one. What I do not understand is that he has told the House about the 5 per cent. margin of error which there might be in a breathalyser test—that it might get a positive reaction when there is not the required level of alcohol in the blood—but this seems to be an argument for better breathalyser tests and not an argument against the principle of having random checks by the police. Could the right hon. Gentleman make his position clear?

Sir M. Redmayne: That is an important point. If anyone invents a breathalyser which is 100 per cent. perfect, the hon. Gentleman's point is made. But I am talking about the type of thing which is likely to be used as soon as the Bill becomes law.
I was about to say that I am not much of a gambling man, but there can be no question that the odds that this system will catch the one or two in a hundred are considerably long. The man over the danger mark, who is the most likely menace, may be driving home as best he can—or, sadly enough, weaving his way home, if he has had a little too much—unchecked because the police are too busy with a largely fruitless search to be on the alert for the careless driving


of the man they really want. That is the real point of the argument.
There are problems here. First, I believe that the system of random checks, which I have tried fairly to describe, however carefully and methodically and dutifully carried out by the police—of course it will be—will become ridiculous. It will become something of a joke and drivers' experiences in a certain class will be spoken of as a joke in pubs and clubs the day after they have escaped an obvious check. The police will be the victims of the joke. It will be a gamble, too. The potential offender, as he takes one more drink, will persuade himself easily enough as his spirits rise—in more than one sense—that the odds are getting longer. The gamble, too, will be against the police.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, and I will not poach on his ground, except to say that in the recent debate on crime, he stressed the need to maintain the respect of the public for the police and the equal need to see that their scarce time, already employed 50 per cent. on traffic duties, is used to the best advantage. This proposition for spot checks is no way to achieve that and I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary will bring all their guns to bear—if that is a tactful expression—on the right hon. Lady to see that this practice goes out of the Bill—

Mrs. Castle: Of course, we can find difficulties in this solution, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he would deal with it? That is by no means clear.

Sir M. Redmayne: I have spoken for too long already. Indeed, I have taken note of a Motion on the Notice Paper stating that we speak for too long.
What I am saying is a perfectly simple matter; that the target of the Bill is specifically those whose blood shows more than 80 mg. of alcohol. These are the people who, by their actions, most clearly offend the law and most clearly cause the accidents. These are the people on whom the police must concentrate, and, therefor, the Bill should be amended so that the police cannot take this action—except, of course, after an accident—against a driver without good cause for suspicion.

Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the whole point of the Bill which is to create an entirely new offence, based on medical evidence, to the effect that a person's ability to drive is impaired without that impairment being visible or without even the driver being aware of it. It is no good saying that we want to accept 80 mg. as a limit unless we are able to enforce it. The whole point here is to detect something which is not visible by the normal methods.

Sir M. Redmayne: The B.M.A. recommendation is to the effect that over the 80 mg. level one finds a class of drinker who is clearly a menance. I want the whole of the Bill and the resources of the police to be directed towards eradicating that menace. I do not believe that the spot check will do anything but waste the time of the police.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle indicated dissent.

Sir M. Redmayne: The right hon. Lady does not agree, but I am attempting to put this as reasonably as I can. There is no real precedent in law for this procedure; namely, that a subject whose actions have in no way given reasonable grounds for suspicion that he may have contravened the law should be compelled, on pain of penalty and arrest, to submit to a physical examination for the purpose of possibly establishing that he has committed an offence.
The right hon. Lady quoted vehicle checks. If that is the best precedent the Minister can give for this new proposition, she will have to think again. I have heard other suggestions or parallels. For example, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), the former Home Secretary, is on record as having said that there is no difference here from the powers of the Metropolitan Police. Yet the Metropolitan Police Act—and the Liverpool Corporation Act, which is the same in this respect—empowers constables to make an inquiry of a person as to the possession of property only if there is reasonable ground to believe or suspect that the property has been stolen.
Similarly, the Customs and Excise Act has been called in aid, but here again, in one Section after another, there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion. Even in time of war a power as drastic as Regulation 18B of the Defence General


Regulations imposed on the Secretary of State a duty that he should have reasonable cause to believe the person concerned to be of hostile disposition. In spite of these precedents, this Bill proposes that a constable in uniform can act without reasonable cause for suspicion.
The Minister was very eloquent and she appealed to our sense of urgency in this matter. However, the danger is that this new proposition is put to us in a situation in which the sympathy and sentiment of most people, including motorists, are in favour of the objects of the Bill. But it is an emotive situation, and it is in this emotive situation that the Government are instituting a method and procedure which will produce new restrictions on the citizen. I sincerely believe that they are both unnecessary and inffective. And the precedent, once established, will be increasingly hard to resist.
The Minister may argue that the public are so anxious to see a reduction in casualties that they will willingly submit to inconvenience. That maybe so, but we at least have a duty to see that such inconvenience is reduced to a minimum and that it is justly applied, not to the public at large but to potential offenders.
The right hon. Lady properly congratulated her predecessor on the groundwork for the Bill. I would have used precisely the same terms about her predecessor. But he was the father of the Ml. He had to have parental pride in it. However, it is not the present Minister's Measure. She has inherited it. I therefore appeal to her and the Home Secretary to help us to ensure that it will be a successful Measure, and I urge them to give an undertaking tonight that the random check will come out of the Bill.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I join with the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) for his responsibility for this excellent Bill. We all agree, even if we disagree with certain parts of the Measure, that it should do a great deal to reduce the number of road deaths in Britain and, plainly, its preparation was largely in the hands of

my right hon. Friend, who deserves the thanks of the House.
I must at the outset say a word about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I speak as one who has had the longest experience of transport matters in the House, starting as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Herbert Morrison, as he then was, when he was Minister of Transport in 1929. I congratulate the new Minister on her presentation of the Bill and on her appointment.
Having said that, I warn her that when she spoke about her position as a hot spot she was making an understatement. There is no Government responsibility more difficult than that which must be carried out by the Minister of Transport. I have had long experience of this. My right hon. Friend has ranged against her a huge number of powerful interests all acting, as they believe, in the national interest—local authorities, unions, private car owners, national transport boards, private carriers and always the Treasury. She is faced the whole time with many grave, urgent and almost intractable problems.
We wish her luck and, from my experience, I say to her that to be a successful Minister of Transport she must have certain qualities. She must have an iron will, a razor-sharp mind, the persuasiveness of a snake charmer and the hide of a rhinoceros. I am sure that she has all those qualities. I am, perhaps, not quite so sure about the last one, but I am certain that she will acquire it, whether or not she wants to, during her occupancy of her present post. Having those qualities, we look forward to her achieving great things.
My right hon. Friend is fortunate to be introducing this as her first Bill, as she has the good will of everyone. Normally, transport Measures are highly contentious and raise party political passions. This one does not. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will share my pleasure that these proposals have at last come before Parliament, having advocated them over many years.
When the last Government Road Safety Bill was before the House my hon. Friends and I did everything we could to try to persuade the then Minister of Transport to introduce alcohol tests and to make it an offence for a motorist to have more than a certain quantity of alcohol in his


blood. We were turned down. The Government of the day said that it was impracticable, that the difficulties were almost insuperable and that public opinion was against it. At last, after many years and after the British Medical Association made this recommendation in 1960, we have this Measure before us and we can look forward to this proposal being enacted.
What used to happen over and over again in those days was as infuriating as it was ridiculous. Public opinion was aroused every year by the huge number of accidents over Christmas and New Year. Questions were asked in the House with great indignation to the Minister of Transport demanding to know what he would do about it. The answer was always the same—that he would ask the Road Research Laboratory to inquire into those road accidents and ascertain their cause. Every time there came the result that everybody expected—that the heavy rate of accidents over the holidays was to a considerable extent due to the large amount of alcohol consumed during that period.
The Bill embodies the principle that it will be an offence for anybody who has more than 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to drive a car. Everybody is now in agreement; nobody says that this is wrong or impractical. I am glad to say that, as far as I can judge, the two motoring organisations, which sometimes are rather reactionary and which, in the past, have defended the interests of the motorist rather than the public interest, support this proposal.
It is suggested that the figures quoted in the White Paper are rather misleading. The White Paper tells us that 22 per cent. of the people killed during December, 1964, and January, 1965, were found to have a greater concentration of alcohol than 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood. That may or may not be a fair figure. If, however, it is roughly accurate and if one projects those figures throughout the year and assumes that nobody who drinks that large amount of alcohol will be driving, that would be the equivalent of saving possibly 1,500 deaths a year. That is a purely mathematical calculation. These figures relate only to the drivers of motor cars and motor cycles and take no account of the

number of passengers or pedestrians who may have been killed.
I am not as optimistic as some people who suggest that the effect upon the death roll will be anything like as great as that, but I draw to the attention of the House a figure quoted by the British Medical Association in its 1960 Report, showing that it is not only the direct effect in preventing people drinking more than they should which may have a salutary effect upon the number of road accidents. It is also the psychological effect and the fear that people may be caught which has a substantial influence in road accidents.
I am referring to the experience in the State of Tennessee, in 1956, when random road checks took place for the first time. It was found that the mere existence of random road checks to see whether people had too much alcohol in their blood resulted in a reduction by 16 per cent. in the number of accidents on the roads in the subsequent year.

Sir M. Redmayne: Regardless of what happens in Tennessee, the figures from which the right hon. Gentleman can quote as a result of that system, may I ask him to understand that my belief is that the more limited system will be more effective still?

Mr. Strauss: That is arguable, but if we could get a reduction of 16 per cent. I should be very satisfied.
The main argument against the Bill will be, as the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised, that random checks are wrong, are against public policy and would not be as effective as a check upon those people who appear to the police to have, or whom the police suspect of having, too much alcohol in their blood.
First, I will deal with the general principle of whether this is an infringement of individual liberty which is unjustified and whether we should not accept the idea that sober people or those who may be teetotallers should be stopped on the road and put to considerable inconvenience by having to undergo the breathalyser test, and that this is contrary to our traditions of personal freedom and violate our ideas of the extent to which people should be molested by the forces of law and order.
I do not support that view. The principle of spot checks in other matters


has been well established and in operation for many years. Spot checks are made on commercial vehicles the whole time. 130,000 such vehicles were stopped last year and the state of their maintenance checked.

Mr. Crowder: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, as a matter of practice, those vehicles are stopped only if for some reason or other they are suspect?

Mr. Strauss: That is not the case. They are definitely spot checked. Any vehicle is subject to check by a policeman who may stop it.
We are all inconvenienced as individuals by spot checks when we pass through the Customs, where sometimes we have to wait a long time. Although the Customs officer has no suspicion that we have offended against the law by carrying contraband, he stops us and examines our luggage. It is a spot check.

Sir M. Redmayne: The Customs officer has to have reasonable cause to make that inquiry.

Mr. Strauss: Not a bit of it. The right hon. Gentleman and I have passed through the Customs often looking, I hope, like perfectly respectable and responsible citizens and not smugglers. The Customs officer has no reason to suspect that either the right hon. Gentleman or I carry contraband. I never do, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not carry it either. The Customs officer has no reason to suspect, but, quite rightly, he wants to open my bag and see what I have.
Every citizen entering the country has the risk of a spot check being made. Therefore, the principle of spot checks, whether conducted by a policeman or by a Customs officer who has no suspicion whatever that an individual may be carrying contraband, is accepted and established.

Mr. Bessell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, requires that a Customs officer shall have reason to suspect?

Mr. Strauss: That may be. I am talking about what happens in practice. In practice, the Customs officer can have no possible reason for suspecting me any more than he has for suspecting the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe when he asks

us to open our luggage. In practice, therefore, spot checking takes place on a large scale, to the inconvenience of the public.
Whatever the legal position might be, I do not think, therefore, that we can morally object to spot checking if, in fact, it achieves the purpose of the Bill better than merely testing people whom a policeman suspects have too great a concentration of alcohol in their blood.
If someone drinks too much he probably thinks that he is likely to be asked to take a breathalyser test, only if he drives poorly so as to cause a policeman to have suspicion. He will say to himself, as nearly everybody does when drinking, "Well, I will be all right. My drink will not make me wander across the road. Therefore, the chance of my being picked up is negligible." Such a belief may, of course, be wrong. The probability is that if an accident happens it will not be when he is going down a straight road driving perfectly well, but when an emergency occurs, because he will be confident that he can drive without causing suspicion.
If, on the other hand, he knows that he may be stopped by the police anyhow, he will be more cautious. Someone suggested that the chance is only one in 100. Why should it not be less than that, perhaps one in 50? It would be far better as a deterrent that the spot check should be in operation rather than checking only on vehicles which are badly driven. The right hon. Member spoke about a gamble. From a gambling point of view deterrent, the spot check is very much better. It will be more frightening.
Are there to be sufficient police to carry out these tests in view of the other duties they have to undertake? Will they concentrate their efforts, or spread them in such a way that only one in 100 drivers are stopped, or will they go to an area and stop perhaps one in 15, 20, or 30 drivers? I ask the Minister what publicity it is proposed shall accompany this new system of testing blood and urine to make people understand what is happening, to make them willing to cooperate and, in particular, to make them understand that even if they take less than 80 mgs. per 100 ml. of blood that may not mean that they are fit to drive on the roads.
Is the safety propaganda—to be initiated, I hope, by the Minister through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—to be better than it has been in the past? I express a personal opinion when I say that on the whole it has been poor and much of it wholly ineffective. I have not been much impressed by the one poster recently put out, which many people seem to like, saying, "Do not ask a man to drink and drive". I have never heard a woman ask a man to drink and drive, and I do not suppose anyone else has. That does not seem to be very sensible.
Are the motoring organisations, the A.A. and the R.A.C., which have enormous influence on the motorist, to take part in the propaganda to make the new system acceptable to the motoring public? This is very important. They should be asked to co-operate. Would it not be a good idea to make it compulsory for every public house and hotel bar not only to have a glass of water available for anyone who wants a drink, but a breathalyser on the premises? Then, if there is any doubt about whether anyone has had too much to drink he can give himself a test before going out. If that were done on a large scale, people would not think it humiliating, but exceedingly wise.
I do not want to take up time speaking about the rest of the Bill. Nearly all the proposals in it have been advocated for a long time. It is good to see that they are to be incorporated in legislation at last. However, whatever one does on the lines of legislation, whether by further tests of vehicles or by the new tests applying to individuals, the amount that can be done by legislation is inevitably limited. Responsibility must rest on the individual user, those who put cars on the roads, and in particular those who drive them. Our problem is not with the majority of road users who are competent drivers and do not drink much, if at all, but with the small minority, the addicts as the right hon. Gentleman called them, the really heavy drinkers who cause all the damage.
It may be that the provisions in the Bill will not have a salutory result by their direct application, but a more subtle and effective one in strengthening

the climate of public opinion against their anti-social behaviour.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: This debate has started late and, therefore, I shall make no reference to Part II of the Bill, following the two right hon. Gentlemen who preceded me, but come at once to the part which I think arouses controversy and interest in all parts of the House.
The first thing I comment on is the Minister's description of the state of accidents on our roads. Of course, everyone must be disquieted by the number of accidents on the roads, but it is also right to remember that our record in Britain in this matter is one of the very best in the world. We have one of the lowest proportions of casualties to vehicle miles of any country anywhere.
Secondly, our record in this respect has been one of very great progress over the last 25 or 30 years. Without drastic and panic remedies, as the number of vehicles coming on to the roads has increased—I hope I shall not say anything which distracts the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary from his conversation—the number of accidents per vehicle mile has tended to decline. That is the true background against which we should see the problem we face. It is important that we should have that in mind because the right hon. Lady the Minister started by presenting to us a somewhat horrifying projection of the road scene for the future. I venture to doubt whether anything of that kind could happen, because if vehicles come on to the roads in the numbers expected, either the roads will be completely choked or they will have been improved.
If the right hon. Lady looks into this carefully, as I am sure she will, I think she will find that the very greatest contribution to safety on the roads can be made by improvement of the roads, in particular by the separation of vehicles going in opposite directions and the separation of vehicles from pedestrians. Probably, after improvement of the roads, the next greatest contribution can be made by procuring greater concentration on driving by those who drive. Nothing causes more accidents than the temporary dissipation of concentration whether by


conversation inside a motor car or in some other way.
While, of course, we should address our minds to the question of drink and see what contribution we can make there to reducing the number of accidents on the road, whatever is possible there is on a quite different scale from the sort of figures the right hon. Lady put before us in her opening remarks. I am a little mistrustful when I hear a Minister of the party opposite saying, as so many have said in the past, that he or she intends to go into some undertaking as if it were a military operation. Again, I hate to distract the attention of Ministers from their conversations. I hope that if I do not speak too loudly I shall not disturb them.
The reaction of many people inside and outside the House to Part I of the Bill will be that there is a grave risk of acting in a mood of hysteria because there is a feeling that steps of a rather dramatic and drastic character ought to be taken. I am not sure that the right hon. Lady by Part I, and, in particular, by the randum checks, which is what I am really addressing my mind to, will effect quite the change in public attitude which she wants. I think that she may procure the exact opposite of what she wants.
I have taken a great interest in this subject for many years, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) knows, because I think that we have been together on two major road traffic Bills in the past. I have a feeling that the general condemnation of the motorist, the mad dog approach to the motorist, the reference to the motor car as a lethal weapon and to motoring offences as ordinary criminal offences, is a habit of mind and of speaking which has gone on for a good many years and people have only just come to the verge of challenging it and objecting to it. On the whole motorists feel pretty vulnerable because there are so many accidents.
If the right hon. Lady goes ahead with this random testing, she will go over the line and will bring about a public reaction to the treatment of the motorist by the Executive and, if you like, by Parliament, and certainly by the police, which will surprise her and which, I think, will be justified. Motor cars are not lethal instruments. They are motor

cars. Motoring offences are not ordinary criminal offences. They are offences of negligence, of neglect of duty in some way or another, and are clearly distinguished from offences of malice, of fraud, and of deliberate ill-doing.
The citizen who injures another citizen by his momentary lack of due care and attention does a serious thing, but no one serves any useful purpose by describing him as an ordinary criminal. He probably is not. He may be a most respectable member of a family who has no other wish throughout his life than to uphold the cause of law and order. Abuse of the motorist has reached the ultimate point. With the random checks the point is reached where we ought to stop and consider very carefully what we are to do.
The right hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall made a comparison between the random testing for mechanical efficiency of goods vehicles and the random testing proposed in the Bill of people by the road in public view to determine whether they have a certain proportion of alcohol in their blood. I do not know that in a speech which I want to be short I can successfully define the difference which I apprehend between those two, but I think I can say, as one does when challenged to define an elephant, that at any rate one knows an elephant when one sees it. It is perfectly clear to me that there is a most material distinction between stopping a lorry to spot-check it and stopping an individual by the roadside and spot-checking him physically to determine his physical condition, in full and open public view of any man, woman or child.
The figure of 1½ per cent. has been freely mentioned in the debate as being the proportion of people shown by a survey to be those who might be found to have more than 80 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml. of blood. I question that figure. If it were true that there were driving round 1½ per cent. of people with more than that amount of alcohol in their blood, this would be a serious matter. But when are the samples taken on which the statistics are based? Does anyone in his senses believe that, if these statistics were to be based on, say, the morning rush hour, 1½ per cent. of people would be found with that proportion of alcohol


in their blood? It is an absurd suggestion. I very much suspect that those who take these surveys and who are very interested in the subject choose the sort of times which are most likely to be productive of interesting figures and that if the survey covered the general mass of traffic at all times of the day a totally different figure would result.
The right hon. Lady said that it is arguable that 6 per cent. of accidents are attributable in some degree to alcohol. Let us assume that this be so, though, again, I doubt whether it is accurate. However, if it be so, it must be remembered that nothing like that 6 per cent. is the prize of Part I of the Bill. The main yield or dividend from attacking drunkenness on the roads, is already covered by the existing provisions of the Road Traffic Act and all that the random testing would hope to catch would be those whose impairment by alcohol would otherwise escape detection unless they had an accident. That is the primary purpose of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) so correctly pointed out, if members of the overstrained police force are taken off the work of looking for motorists on the road whose conduct as drivers suggests that it might be profitable to stop them and are transferred to the task of stopping at random every twentieth driver, the dividend or yield from this operation will fall and not rise.
The Minister seemed to recognise some of the obvious objections and difficulties of her random checks method. She asked the House to suggest in what other way this system can be enforced. She challenged my right hon. Friend to say how he would enforce the new system, because, she said, by definition we are dealing with people who are to be punished simply because they have a certain proportion of alcohol in their blood; there is nothing to be seen; unless they are stopped at random, the whole operation loses its purpose.
That is not so. As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we had debates about this on the last Road Traffic Bill. What was envisaged then and what could be envisaged here is that we should replace with a physical test of blood or urine the argument, which is very familiar

to those in the practice of the law and who have to deal with these cases, as to whether the man was drunk or not and all the business as to whether he walked straight or was wobbling and, if wobbling along a straight line, to what degree was he wobbling, whether he could spell peculiar words, and whether he could repeat odd tongue-twisters.
That is completely independent of any question of random checks. That is when a motorist, as under the existing law, is stopped because someone, usually a policeman, considers from some observed fact that his driving is, or may be, impaired by reason of alcohol or drugs, and the issue is whether or not he is guilty. We all know that there is a great deal of coming and going in regard to the number of motorists whom juries acquit. I do not quite agree with all the criticism. Nevertheless, that is what the debates were about when we considered the previous road traffic Measure. I do not think that there was ever more than a passing reference, even if that, to random checks.
I therefore submit to the right hon. Lady that Clause 1 introduces this very striking change—not wholly controversial—and we can see how it works. But it is a completely false argument to say that this very large change in the administration of the law must be accompanied by random checks. Indeed, I believe that, on general grounds, this is a most objectionable innovation, and I do not shrink from saying that I regard it as a great infringement of personal freedom.
The Minister did not actually use the phrase, which is so depressingly familiar in these discussions, that no price is too high to pay for a reduction in deaths or injuries on the roads, though she rather implied it by her argument, as did the right hon. Member for Vauxhall. It is an absurd statement. If it were true, we should stop all vehicular traffic on the roads. That would stop all deaths and injuries on the roads, and if no price is too high to pay we should be prepared to pay that price. We all know that it is nonsense; that there is a price too high to be paid for a reduction in road deaths and injuries, and it is only a lack of frankness that sometimes prevents us from expressly saying so.
In my view, the price exacted by the random checks is higher, so far as my


own choice goes, than I am prepared to pay for any reduction of deaths or injuries that it might yield, though I do not believe that it would yield a reduction. I do not believe so, but I do not shrink from saying that even if it were the case I am not prepared to pay that price.
The right hon. Lady said that the random check was a good thing because it removed any sense of suspicion or guilt from the person being tested. She said that passers-by, watching the test, would know that it was just a respectable citizen being put through the hoops in accordance with routine because—and I took down her words—"Anyone, at any time, in any circumstances, may be stopped." I think that the ultimate test here is for each to ask himself how he would feel about being stopped. I think that it will be regarded by most people as a humiliating experience—and it will be a humiliating experience.
We have reticences in this country which are not universally shared. We should regard it as somewhat undignified to be stopped at the side of the road and made to blow up one of these beastly little balloons. If I were asked to blow one up in one breath in fifteen seconds, plus or minus three seconds, I would feel it not only undignified but a little difficult. As my right hon. Friend so cogently demonstrated, there is 5 per cent. of false positives—or rather, that is the claim of the inventor of the device, and it is not unreasonable to think that that is the most optimistic estimate and that those not so closely concerned with it might take a rather different view.
That means that five people in every 100 will have a wrong positive test. They will be taken to the police station, but may have to wait at the side of the road until a police car is available to drive them off to the police station, where they will be forced to undergo further tests, the results of which will be unknown to them for two days.
That is quite a price to pay—quite a price. I must say to the right hon. Lady that the average British person—and 50 per cent. of persons, as motorists, do not drink at all—I am one of them—and the great majority of the rest drink in such minimum degree when driving that apparently they are not really concerned as possibly guilty persons—will regard

this as a grossly insulting and offensive procedure. And he will be right.
The function of the police is to detect the guilty, and to detect the guilty inside the rules that the rest of the community choose to make for the operation. It is not their job to spot-check innocence—or rather, to cross-check innocence. Of course, we can stamp out crime fairly easily if we are prepared to sacrifice a vast area of personal freedom, but the question is: what sort of country do we want to live in?
Is the most important thing in the world that we should all stay here as long as possible, so that no price is too high to pay to reduce the toll on the roads, or do we want a country in which we are proud and happy to live? I have no hesitation in saying to the right hon. Lady that I really hardly care how many accidents are prevented by it, this is not something that I am prepared to support. I think that the Executive are getting a little above themselves in proposing things like this to Parliament; and that the public will think so, too.
What is perhaps more unfair is that the public will think that the police are getting a little above themselves. That is very unfair, because so far as I have been able to discover the police do not want this check at all. It is being wished on to them by experts, who get wrapped up in their subject and think that nothing is more important in the world than making progress in their own chosen field of interest and arranging things more methodically, and planning things better. But the main odium will fall on the police.
The thing above all that is corroding relations between the public and the police is the duty of the police in relation to road traffic. That is the great destroyer of good feelings between public and police; and this provision will be the last straw. It will, I am afraid, prompt a good many people to regard the policeman as their enemy instead of as their friend and protector. For that reason, also, I am most sorry that this proposal should have been made to the House. At a later stage, when I can vote against it without voting against the rest of the Bill, I shall certainly do so—alone or, as I hope, in the company of many other hon. Members.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: It is probably true that all laws are restrictive. To some extent, all laws interfere with the liberty of the subject, and the more complicated society becomes, the more and more laws are passed which become more and more restrictive of the liberty of the individual. We must accept that as something that is bound to happen in modern society. Our concern in Parliament is to see that what is done is reasonable, and will not inflict any undue restriction on the liberty of the subject. It is on that basis that we must consider the present position.
Everyone accepts that there are far more road accidents than there should be, and that something must be done. It is also an accepted fact that a vast number of these accidents are due to motorists having had too much to drink. We start from there in considering what sort of legislation we need to be able to improve the situation.
The fact remains that everything done up to now has not materially improved the situation. I am not sure, technically, whether the level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol in the blood is the right figure. The British Medical Association says that, on the whole, it is on the high side. Thus the Minister has erred rather on the high than the low side so that a greater number of people can escape the trap than will fall into it; but that is probably the right thing to do.
Nevertheless, this does not alter the fact, about which I am seriously concerned, that a person with below 80 milligrammes of alcohol in his blood might well be impaired. But unless he can be found to be driving dangerously he will not be liable to any penalty or prosecution. Frankly, I do not know of any way out of that situation. Once we begin to fix arbitrary levels, it is difficult to depart from them either way.
It has been argued that people with higher content than 80 milligrammes in their blood have been able to get away with it under present procedures. Certainly, I think that it is a good thing that the number of arguments in court about whether a person is capable or incapable will be reduced in this respect. The acceptance of a limit is thus a good thing in itself.
When a spot-check is made, how will a person who is pulled up and found, on a breathalyser test, to have a prima facie case against him get to the police station? Will a police car take him? Will a police car be available at spot-checks? We want something firmer on this aspect. We shall want a provision whereby the person involved may allow a police officer to drive his car to the station. That would certainly be the quickest way, especially if that person was allowed to drive his own car home after further examination at the station.
Certainly, if I were stopped and had to go to the police station for further tests, I would much rather a police officer drove me in my own car. That would be a far more satisfactory way to proceed than to go in a police car. These are all matters which must be taken care of in the interests of the individual citizen. Being stopped like this will be regarded by most people as a stigma and unless we include careful and sensible procedures the public will soon quarrel with the police about the operation of the Bill.
Many factors must be taken into account. I do not like random checks of any kind. But will someone tell me precisely what can be done over and above what is now permitted to be done, apart from using the breathalyser, in order to deal with the person who should not be driving but who, to all intents and purposes, appears to be capable of driving?
Nothing has been said by right hon. and hon. Members about any reasonable alternative proposal. I would certainly welcome one, as would the motoring organisations. They accept the idea that people who drink should not drive. An alternative method to random checks would be welcomed by the motoring organisations, and I am on their side in that respect. But in the absence of anything else, spot-checks will have to be tried.
If the system does not prove satisfactory, then the Minister will have to come back to the House in sackcloth and ashes and say that we must try something else. Incidentally, I would like to see Ministers sometimes prepared to admit that they have been wrong. But it is very unusual for them to do so. As I say, this new


method must be tried. I do not welcome it, however, although I recognise the near-impossibility of doing otherwise. I recognise, too, that this proposal represents an encroachment on the liberty of the subject over and above what has been done before and it is only because of the nature and the urgency of the problem that I can give it my support.
I have been connected with the heavy motor vehicle industry for 40 years. Many of us in the industry were asking for plating of vehicles before the war. In the 1930s we suggested that this was one of the ways in which overloading could be prevented. The manufacturers were among those who advocated it. But successive Ministers always refused to do it and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on at last bringing in the plating of vehicles, which will show whether or not there is a prima facie case of overloading.
Vehicles which appear not to be overloaded very often are and there is usually a long argument in court about it. If a vehicle is plated, one need only put it on a weighbridge and there can be no question about the matter. I hope that this provision will have a considerable effect in stopping overloading.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the proposal to approve types of vehicles. I am sure that this will be generally welcomed. At present, the procedure is by more or less willy-nilly inspections at particular times, when 100 or even 1,000 vehicles might be involved. The inspector may pick up something and say, "We are not approving this", and thereby affect a whole range of vehicles. But if these things are sorted out beforehand and there is type approval of vehicles, it will be generally helpful to the industry and certain standards will be implicit in design, which will tend more towards road safety.
I welcome the Bill, with some reservations on the random spot-checking. I hope that someone will suggest an acceptable alternative I shall be able to support. But I see no alternative at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I failed to notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) was trying to catch my eye last time. Sir Richard Nugent.

6.58 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That puts me all the more on my mettle to be quick.
Whilst, of course, I support a Bill to improve road safety, I shall depart from the right hon. Lady on Clause 2. My answer to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) is that there is a solution. It was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). It is that Clause 1 makes a very considerable advance in dealing with drink and driving.
One of the major problems today is the difficulty, to which the White Paper refers in paragraphs 20 and 22, of getting convictions of obviously drunk drivers, and undoubtedly the definite level set at 80 mg. of alcohol in the blood will help to secure convictions in cases where there should be convictions. I welcome that.
There are cogent arguments against the system of spot-checking, and I want to turn directly to them, but not before I have said to the right hon. Lady that I warmly support her intentions. I had the pleasure of serving for three years in the Ministry, and I know how heavily the problem of road safety weighs upon all who serve her. I warmly support her broad intentions.
Most of the Bill seems quite admirable, but, on balance, I do not think that the right hon. Lady is going to get this provision about spot-checking.
The right hon. Lady claimed that most people would accept the need for roadside spot-checks. But already there has been a very strong reaction from the motoring organisations. I agree that they are usually rather defensive in their reactions. I am on the Committee of the R.A.C., and I do my best to see that we take a positive view of things. The fact is that these organisations speak for millions of drivers, and together the drivers make up, if not the majority, precious near the majority of the whole adult community. Therefore, the R.A.C. and the A.A. speak for a very large number of people, and I believe that they are right in what they have said about this matter.
I do not propose to develop what has already been said about resentment because of interfering with the liberty of the subject. However, I am very glad that the Home Secretary is here to hear me say


that what I regard as very important will be the resentment against the police in the carrying out of these tests. The right hon. Gentleman has just taken on his very onerous office, and he has the best wishes of everybody, but he more than anybody else in the country must be very conscious that at this time we are in a crime wave the like of which this country has never seen, and it must still be in the balance whether it will be possible to command the strength and skill to control and defeat this crime wave.
One of the vital factors in doing that must be the measure of support which public opinion gives to the police and the extent to which the average man in the street feels that the law is his law and that it is his concern to uphold it, and the extent to which he sees the policeman as his trusted friend and protector. This general support is a vital factor psychologically and physically in the degree of support which many brave men and women give to the police when actually in action. Without that we all know that the difficult and dangerous job of the police is impossible.
I am sure that the Home Secretary will confirm that recruitment must be gravely handicapped when public opinion of the Force is adverse. It is true that in the last year or two there have been signs of improving public opinion, after a rather bad patch in the post-war years, but if Part I of the Bill, especially Clause 2, is put on the Statute Book, the police image will be damaged in the eyes of all the drivers in the country. Instead of regarding the policeman as being on his side, so to speak, the driver will regard him as being somebody on the other side, and that is completely the reverse of the attitude which we are trying to get. The policeman will seem to be an officious and interfering person and the driver will be resentful towards him.
It is not a bad thing to remember that although we in Parliament put laws on the Statute Book, they are put there by consent of the nation, by the consent of the majority, and ultimately it is the weight of the nation's approval behind an Act which makes it a reality in practice. It is the weight of the approval of the whole community which gives it authority and force, and it is the weight of the community's disapproval of an

offender which supports the police, the arm of the law, and which makes the work of the police possible.
No one should assume that support for the law and condemnation of the offender is automatic. Our history is littered with examples of unpopular laws which have become dead letters. We need look no further than the traffic laws for the parking of motor cars. Everyone knows perfectly well that until we introduced the meter system we got no enforcement whatever. The police simply did not wish to implement those laws. They felt that to do so was a difficult and unpleasant job which made bad relations with the public. The result was that, practically speaking, those laws were unenforced. That is typical of what happens with an unpopular law—it is simply not enforced.
If the law in Clause 2 is put on the Statute Book and there are spot checks, I dare say that it would fall by the wayside, as have other unpopular laws, but the point I am making is that in the meantime the loss of confidence in the police and the change of the relationship between the driving public and the police would be a dangerous and damaging blow.
The reaction of the Police Federation when these plans were announced was soon. The Federation asked from where the men were to come to do this work. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) will develop the other point, that if these spot checks are to be carried out effectively they will have to be done on quite a large scale and quite frequently. No one has told us how many men would be required each time, but a number of policemen would have to be on duty at each spot check. This would mean a considerable diversion of the strength of the police force from the prevention of crime to dealing with these offences, and that would be quite the reverse of being in the public interest.
I accept that the right hon. Lady might produce some marginal gain from these proposals, although nobody knows. However, I do not believe that, with the expense of embittering the relationship between the driving public and the police, we would have a net gain in the overall life of the country and in the


interests of law and order. I believe that we would lose out.
I put it to the right hon. Lady most earnestly that her Bill would be greatly improved if she stopped these provisions at Clause 1. That would be a substantial advance, because it would make sure that the worst offenders were convicted when they are now getting away with it again and again and she would produce a Bill which would receive the support of the whole country, including the whole driving public.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: It is not surprising that every speech so far, almost including the Minister's, has concentrated on Part I, because the tragedy and drama which follow accidents caused by persons who have been driving under the influence of alcohol is newsworthy and the proposed new penalties and tests are somewhat dramatic. However, I hope that the House will not forget Part II of the Bill which deals with goods vehicles. If the novelty of Part I attracts a great deal of attention, we should not forget the continuing tragedy which lies behind the proposals in Part II.
I note in parentheses that the White Paper on Road Safety, Cmnd. 2859, which was published only a few weeks ago, refers to the proposed new Regulations governing the brakes of lorries. An inquiry which I made of the Ministry leads me to understand that these Regulations will not be coming forward for some months yet. I am sorry about this, and later I shall refer to a case involving defective brakes, a case upon which I wish to pin many of my preliminary observations.
The ultimate sanction against people who drive lorries or cause lorries to be driven when they are defective and unsafe is the revocation of the licence to operate road haulage fleets or vehicles. The figures mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which are available in the annual reports of the licensing authorities, show a progressive but minimal increase in immediate prohibitions which have been attained as a result of vehicles being examined by her Ministry's officers and, presumably, the police.
In the 12 months 1963–64, something fewer than 118,000 vehicles were examined, 9·5 per cent. of those

examinations resulting in immediate prohibitions. In the 12 months ending 30th September, 1965, 139,000 vehicles were examined. Of that number, 11·5 per cent. were served with immediate prohibitions. This figure should be qualified to some extent by the increase in the number of registrations. They are not quite as bad as they appear to be, but they are bad enough.
Part of my case will be to show that there is the other sanction, the revocation of the licence, which is not being applied often enough. In 1963–64, three licences involving four vehicles were revoked. In the 12 months ending 30th September, 1965, out of 132 prohibitions, 86 concerned A and B licences and only three were revoked. This power of revocation was referred to in the Geddes Report in paragraph 2.43, which said:
A licensing authority has power to revoke, suspend or curtail a licence…for…a single conviction or prohibition for an offence of a wilful or particularly dangerous nature.
To the ordinary person the figures for revocations of licences bear no relationship to the seriousness of this problem of defective vehicles on the road.
There is a social aspect to all of this. Many hon. Members will have read a series of well-informed and well-documented articles which appeared in the Sunday Times towards the end of 1964, when evidence was given in support of that newspaper's general contention that much of this trouble was attributable to the laxity of the so-called "cowboys". I have never quite understood what the term "cowboy" means. In this context it could mean an owner-driver or even a man owning two or three lorries of dubious maintenance quality. The more I look into this problem the more I am convinced that these so-called "cowboys", and more especially their drivers, are not necessarily the worst offenders. The Sunday Times performed a public service in bringing this matter to the attention of the public. I was not sure at the time whether it was anti-cowboy or pro-big business. This matter has been taken up in a very sensible way by the Sun newspaper.
One has to examine the degree to which drivers of lorries are subjected to coercion by their employers. I know that certain trade unions have been studying this for years. I have a lot of


evidence which has been sent to me about the positive blackmail to which some drivers are subjected on the general principle of "if they won't drive the lorry, they lose their job". In one of the articles in the Sunday Times, there was the case of a driver called Brenton who, on oath, described the treatment to which he was subjected when the brake pedal cylinder of his lorry became defective. He reported this to his employer who was annoyed about the delay over the lorry and told him to get on with the job. He refused and a replacement was promised for the next day, after some discussion. The spare was delayed and the foreman at the garage where the lorry had been taken said that the employer had demanded that the lorry should be sent back in its defective condition. The foreman told the lorry driver:
Your gov'nor is a bit of a bloody nit. He only expects me to put the old cylinder on and send you on your way.
It is a bit of a joke, I know, but the fact is that it conceals a most dangerous action and attitude. Once again I quote from the Sunday Times:
Late on Wednesday I rang my employer again. He said: 'I want you to bring it down.' I said: 'No, I am not driving something without brakes.' The employer said: 'Well, I'd do it. Other drivers have done it. If you can't, I'll get someone who will'.
I have examples of other cases. A lady in my constituency, whom I do not know personally, wrote to me about a case, to which I am going to refer later, involving the death of four children and two adults. In her letter she said, and this is the only party political point I can be accused of making:
I have an uncle who has been a driver for private companies and also for B.R.S., and although he is not a Socialist, he admits that he often had to risk his life and others in the lorries he took out for many private firms. (He was made to or he would have lost his job.) But in B.R.S. he would have been dismissed if he had knowingly driven a defective lorry.
I could go on quoting cases, but I hope that I have made my point. I feel very strongly that many drivers are subjected to positive blackmail. My chief complaint against the existing law, and certain provisions of the new Bill, is that the penalties for having a defective lorry on the road are wholly derisory. Clause

15 of the Bill provides no sort of alteration of penalty for this offence. The penalty remains at £50, a figure which I would ask hon. Members to remember.
As I understand the law—and I am glad to see that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is on the Front Bench—magistrates have no power to refer cases to a higher court even if in their judgment the maximum penalties they may impose are wholly inadequate for a given offence. This is the tragedy of the situation. If the law prescribes a maximum penalty which is inadequate, what can a bench do if cases are referred to it under regulations procured under the Road Traffic Acts? I challenge any hon. Member who is not a departmental specialist, or ex-departmental specialist, fully to grasp the complexity of the Road Traffic Acts, 1960 and 1962, and the multiple regulations which derive from them. It is the 1960 Act which is the principal Act in the Bill we are now discussing. I am not at all sure that it can be said that the law as it stands is either understood or greatly honoured.
In my local newspaper, the Tamworth Herald, there was a case reported recently of a lorry driver who was extremely annoyed when pulled up by the police because he had a series of defects in his lorry, including a faulty speedometer. He said:
The law was an ass.
This is nothing very original, and we have all heard it before. One lorry driver is one thing, but when this attitude is supported by professional organisations then I begin to wonder. There is a journal called "Road Way", which is the official journal of one of the road haulage organisations. In its edition of January 1962, in reporting a case in Northumberland, it said that the defending lawyer complained that his client was being prosecuted because the police had examined the time sheets attached to the log sheets.
It is true that the law demands only that the log sheet shall be examined and not the time sheet. This is a matter which I ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to examine, because this lawyer finished by saying, "Never show your time sheet to a traffic examiner." Yet I have seen evidence that it is on


the time sheets that many of the abuses take place. I would ask my hon. Friend whether something can be done to amend the Bill to tighten either what is already provided in the Road Traffic Act, 1960, or insert something new in the Bill to ensure that this sort of evidence is available to the police or examiners.
I should like to refer to the particular case which made me interested in the problem of the enforcement of maintenance discipline in this industry. I want to measure my words very carefully. I do not want to carry on a vendetta against the firm which was convicted, let alone against the driver. What I complain about is the judicial system which permitted a firm to employ a driver who drove a lorry, one of three defective lorries in that firm's garage, which was involved in an accident which caused the death of two adults and four children. It is very easy, I know, to accuse one of being emotional about a case involving children. I hope that hon. Members will acquit me of being too emotional about this case, but it exemplifies what can go wrong.
In this case, the driver, a man called Brown, was put on trial at the assizes. He was eventually fined £25 and his licence was endorsed for 10 years. I am sorry for this driver—deeply sorry—because what he must be suffering mentally must be very serious indeed. During the course of the trial, before Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones, there was obviously a great doubt in the judge's mind about whether, in charging this man, the real villain of the piece was on trial.
I want to quote a few lines from the court proceedings:
Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones: So it is not that this man failed to report that the brakes were in this state. He was sent out with a vehicle with brakes in this state.
Mr. Pratt, who was prosecuting for the police, replied:
That is undoubtedly the position.
Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones: What has happened to the employer?
Mr Pratt: The Information has been laid under the Construction and Use Regulations"—
which carry a maximum fine of £50—
charging him with using the vehicle in a dangerous condition. It is a Limited Company.
Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones: Have you read the decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal where the Court has given a ruling that persons

can be charged with being an accessory before the fact in manslaughter?
Mr. Pratt: I have not read it.
Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones: Why cannot he be an accessory before the fact to dangerous driving?
Mr. Pratt: He might be that. I should like to consider it.
Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones went on to say this:
But if it be the fact the employers sent this man out driving a large lorry with brakes in such a state as to be practically worthless, I should have thought their share of the blame is greater than the driver's. If that is right, it would be right to charge him with being an accessory before the fact to dangerous driving. I should think it would be a very good thing and a salutary thing. We cannot send the Limited Company to prison, but there are other steps which can be taken which are quite adequate.
I emphasise that point because of what happened subsequently. The public thought, and I thought, that that firm would be subjected to some form of indictment proceedings. I tried to find out what was happening, but I was properly told that I could not raise this matter in the House because there were further proceedings. It turned out that the firm was going to be charged under the traffic regulations of 1963, which carry a maximum penalty of £50.
The evidence, which I heard myself in the court, certainly did not convince me that that firm should not have been indicted, possibly under the 1960 Act, which permits the licence to be revoked. This is what will hurt these employers—revocation of the licence. Why did not that happen? Why was this firm put on a charge in a magistrates court to which it immediately pleaded guilty and which carried this derisory fine? I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General or my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will answer this. Justice does not seem to have been done in this case, and I do not think that it was done—I am measuring my words—because the firm was not tried on a charge which carried much more serious penalties, which I think it should have been.
I do not wish to make heavy weather of a case which, as far as the firm and individuals are concerned, is now over and done with. What I am pleading for is amendment of Clause 15 of the Bill. I do not think that the public expects


that this sort of case, involving the death of six people, should be considered judicially in a lower court with such minimal penalties. Revocation of licences and references to a higher court are imperative in such cases.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Some hon. Members may not have been present when my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General answered a Question on this case in the House yesterday. My right hon. and learned Friend, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), said:
The Director of Public Prosecutions caused careful and extensive police inquiries to be made and discussed the case with me on several occasions. We came to the conclusion that, on the evidence available, the only proceedings which could be brought with a sufficient prospect of success against the company and its transport manager were summary proceedings for a contravention of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1966; Vol. 724, col. 400.]
I would emphasise the words "with a sufficient prospect of success". If my right hon. and learned Friend and the Director of Public Prosecutions had felt that the sort of proceedings to which my hon. Friend has referred—that is, proceedings on indictment—had a reasonable prospect of success they would certainly have been initiated.

Mr. Snow: That is a matter of opinion. I bow to the superior legal knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend. I hope that I am not sounding offensive. All I can say is that I heard the evidence in the magistrates' court. I must not quote the observations of at least one senior policeman. I repeat what I said, that justice does not seem to have been done in this case. The fact that there were three vehicles in a dangerous condition in that firm's garage, the fact that there was contradictory evidence about the maintenance of log sheets, the fact that there was a straightforward disagreement between the senior director and the reputed traffic supervisor lead me to suppose that the public would have been better satisfied had this case gone before a judge and jury, as was suggested by Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones. I concede that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General knows a good deal more about the law than I do, but the fact is that

the Ministry does not appear to understand how disquieted the public is, not just about the case that I have referred to with all its emotive factors, but about the whole tragedy of the lack of maintenance, the difficulties of the police with their lack of personnel and vehicles and the inadequacy of the Ministry in the shape of examiners. All have to be looked at.
The Bill does a great deal to improve the situation, but do not let anyone on the Government Front Bench get away with the idea that the case I have discussed has satisfied the public that justice is being done.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of brakes. I agree with the greater part of what he has said, but wish to confine my remarks to those parts of the Bill which affect the liberty of the subject.
Everyone in the country, and particularly everyone in the House, though one might not think so by the attendance here tonight, is both concerned with the liberty of the subject and the mounting toll of death and destruction on the roads. This is a psychological reaction which makes people look for a panacea, a universal cure to the destruction, and that may be the reason for the first three or four Clauses in the Bill.
I was interested to hear the Minister interrupt my right hon. Friend, it seemed to me with some emotion, and ask what is the alternative to the proposals in the Bill. That challenge was also put by another hon. Member from the right hon. Lady's side of the House.
I have an alternative to suggest to-night. I think that it is a workable one and one which will meet with agreement on all sides. The first duty that a police officer is taught is to prevent crime. Why not bring in the new machinery, the breathalyser, not as the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport said in her interruption to create a new offence, but to prevent the commission of an offence? There is no reason why that should not be done.
In my experience of about 18 years in the courts, be it prosecuting, defending


or presiding, I have found that in the vast majority of cases involving driving under the influence of drink the offence has emanated from people being in public houses. I should like to see random spot-checks carried out with police officers visiting public houses from time to time and, on seeing someone come out of a public house and going towards a car, asking if that person intended to drive, and if the person said, "Yes", asking that person, "Would you mind giving us a few moments and taking this test?"
If the test went against the person, he would not be creating any offence, but he would have had a salutary and useful warning. If he proved obstinate, he could be taken to the police station and detained. In those circumstances, the police would be working and cooperating with the public and be preventing such offences, which is their first duty. That is the alternative which I suggest to the Minister.

Mr. R. W. Brown: May I warn the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously about what he has just said? In the debate in June, I followed that argument in opposition to one of his hon. Friends, merely to point out that that was the logical thing to do. I have since been the recipient of a tremendous barrage from brewery interests accusing me of maligning, they said, a fine body of men in public houses.

Mr. Crowder: We can include restaurants, hunt balls, and any other form of social entertainment, be it in a public house or anywhere else. It might even be after a Division in the House.
The whole safeguard is that the police would be able to approach anyone who looked as if he was about to drive and ask, "Will you take the test, because obviously, you do not want to drive if you are likely to commit an offence?"
As it stands, the Bill presents a very serious intrusion into the personal liberty of the subject. Equally, the offence which is created can be a false one. I expect that hon. Members will know that so far as the courts and the British Medical Association are concerned, there are 32 measures to a bottle of spirits, be it gin or whisky, and alcohol is burnt up in the

body at the rate of one of those 32 measures an hour; in other words, one small whisky or the equivalent of a half pint of beer.
Supposing someone has had a lot to drink in the early hours of the morning and he goes to bed at about four o'clock. Supposing he has consumed something like a half bottle of spirits, or 16 measures. Only one measure will disappear in his body per hour, so that at 8 p.m. the same morning 12 measures will still remain. Taking 12 against 32, that is an extremely heavy concentration.
The fact is that the person concerned will have slept it off. He may have a headache, but he will not be under the influence of drink and he will be perfectly capable of driving a car.
If hon. Members want to know the test, I can tell them straight away. As a matter of general practice, people who are taken into police stations and found by a police surgeon to be unfit to drive through drink, normally speaking are detained as a measure of safety—one knows how careful the police have to be—for a period of three and a half to four hours at the most. It can be longer, but it very seldom is.
Anyone who has had too much to drink and is unfit to drive, will be safe enough on the road having had three or four hours in which to sober up. In any event, that would seem to be the view of the police. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) laughs, but he does not drink alcohol, so he cannot know anything about it.
Alcohol affects the highly sensitive nerve tissues of the brain and, therefore, affects the co-ordination between hand and eye which is so essential to every motorist. After four hours have elapsed, the effect of alcohol on the body disappears. It may leave a headache or a slight hangover, and that is all. But it is still retained in the blood and the nervous system.
Under the earlier Clauses of the Bill, people will be disqualified automatically from driving for 12 months by Statutory Instrument when they are perfectly sober and perfectly capable of driving as well as anyone who has had nothing at all to drink. As alcohol takes such a very long time to be burnt up in the body, it


is still there, and anyone in that condition is still subject to the offence.
I am sure that everyone agrees that it would be most unfair for a person in those circumstances to be penalised at all, and the penalty here is a heavy one. I notice that an offender is to be automatically disqualified for 12 months, which is the situation now if anyone is found guilty of driving when his ability is for the time being impaired through drink.
I have never liked the idea that the House of Commons could impose statutory penalties. Who is the House of Commons to decide? Who is Parliament to decide what is the correct penalty in a particular case? Time and again we find cases where it would be wrong and unfair, because a man through no fault of his own, or scarcely any fault of his own, has got into that condition, to impose a statutory penalty. Every case should be considered on its merits by the court which tries it.
The only way in which a court can get round that statutory penalty is to give a man an absolute discharge, which means that no penalty can be applied. I need hardly say that that has been frowned on by the Court of Criminal Appeal, but there are occasions when courts have no option but to do it simply because Parliament has imposed a statutory penalty. I do not like to see a statutory penalty laid down here. I think that each case should be looked into and tried carefully on its merits. Courts are quite responsible in dealing with matters in that way, and I think that most people would agree that it is their job to do so.
We seem these days to be suffering from a regulation mania which amounts almost to a disease. As a result, we are creating laws which are asking to be broken, and here we are creating a criminal offence. Offhand, I know of no other criminal offence which a person can commit without knowing that he has committed it. One of the basic principles of the criminal law is a guilty state of mind. Here we will have people acting innocently, but who will, nevertheless, be convicted of a criminal offence. Let us consider the hypothetical case of a person who goes to a cocktail party. He is given what purports to be a glass of

orange, but it is filled with ice, and laced with gin. He does not get the taste of the gin, and before he knows where he is he has committed an offence of this nature.
Equally, consider the case which I quoted earlier of somebody who has had a good deal to drink earlier in the day. He is sober, but he does not appreciate that what he has had to drink has not been burnt up in his body. He is taken in on this random check system which I detest, and which I shall vote against, speak against, and lobby against, in every way I know because it affects the liberty of the subject. He is taken in and disqualified from driving for a minimum of 12 months. This is not the thing which should be allowed to go unnoticed through a sparsely attended House of Commons.
Mr. Justice Byrne, who, in my view, was one of the greatest authorities of this century on the criminal law, said that the only real test which one could apply in cases of people who were unfit to drive through drink was the actual driving. I should like to see that defence open to anybody who is taken in and charged with an offence of this nature. Once it has been shown that a person had more alcohol in his body than is allowed by the Bill, he should have open to him the defence of satisfying a jury—and the onus of proof should be on him—that despite that he was perfectly fit to drive at the time that he was taken in. I think that that defence should lie open to him and that he should be entitled to be acquitted if he satisfies the jury on that score.
I am within a minute of my quarter of an hour. I have sought this evening to keep within the new suggestion which has been put before the House, and with which I agree. I am grateful for the attention which I have received, and I hope that when the Minister returns she will have time tomorrow to read what I have said, and perhaps consider it in Committee.

7.44 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: We have just had portrayed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) a picture of someone going to a party, being given water laced with gin and ice, and suddenly finding himself in prison for a year.

Mr. Crowder: Disqualified for a year, not being sent to prison for that period.

Dr. Summerskill: An equally sorry fate for having had one drink. This is the sort of emotional attitude which many hon. Gentlemen opposite have adopted towards this proposed legislation.
I think that if we examine the Bill carefully it will be seen to be a serious attempt to deal with drinking drivers. It is a long overdue piece of legislation, and something which should have been tackled by the previous Government. If we, as Members of Parliament, do not tackle this problem, I do not know who the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks will.
We often regard road deaths as statistics which appear regularly on television at Christmas, Easter, and so on, but statistics, if they are repeated often enough, lose their meaning. For some months I was a casualty officer in a large hospital near a main road, and I noticed that on Friday and Saturday evenings, always after the public houses had closed, people were brought in either seriously injured or dying, and invariably a large number of them were under the influence of alcohol. The Road Research Laboratory's Report shows that drink accidents form 44 per cent. of all fatal accidents.
I do not see the Bill as either antisocial or anti-motorist. It is not the final solution to this problem, but it is at least making some attempt to solve it. As I see it, it is a protection to the pedestrian who, incidentally, has not been mentioned in this debate. It is a protection to sober motorists who are often involved in accidents with drinking drivers. It is also a protection to drinking drivers themselves, because so often these people take cars on to the road with no deliberate intention of causing an accident, and completely unaware that they are not in a fit state to drive a vehicle and are a potential danger to themselves, to their passengers, and to others using the roads.
Alcohol gives a person a sense of euphoria, and often a driver thinks not only that he is driving adequately, but that he is driving even better than usual; and whoever heard of a driver, even when he was sober, admitting that he was not fit to drive. One's capacity for driving is probably the vainest form of conceit, particularly among men. One will never

hear a man admitting that he is not a very good driver, and even less so when he is under the influence of drink.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out in her speech, the essence of the Bill is to detect, for their own safety, people who are under the influence of alcohol and are not fit to drive. Yet they are unaware of this fact, and it is not apparent to anybody who might meet them on the road or in general conversation. They have too much alcohol in their blood, but it is not apparent on superficial examination. That is the purpose of these random checks. The purpose of the blood test is to detect an excess of alcohol which is not apparent.
As we all know, alcohol is a form of drug, and it affects different people in different ways, but it has certain specific physiological effects. We have been advised, probably rightly, not to equate a particular amount of alcohol in the blood with the amount of a certain spirit which one might drink. But even if we, as Members of Parliament, do not equate it, we can be sure that the Press will make it widely known what the man in the street can or cannot drink. There is no point in saying to a man, "You must not exceed 80 mg./100 ml." He does not know what that means. He will want to know what that means in terms of beer, gin and other intoxicants.
We are told by a spokesman of the British Medical Association that under this law a person cannot not with impunity drink more than four single whiskies, five single gins or three to eight glasses of sherry. If I had half a glass of sherry I know that my judgment would be impaired. There are thousands of motorists whose driving capacity will be affected by half the amounts given in this list. I am sure that many of my friends would be flat on the floor after four single whiskies. We cannot avoid these lists appearing in the newspapers, and when a person sees them he will say, "I can drink four whiskies, or five gins, or eight glasses of sherry, or five half pints of beer, and be all right. They cannot touch me." If a person is thin he will be more easily affected than if he is fat, and if he has just had a big meal he will be less affected than if he has not eaten for a few hours.
I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood


that eminent medical men have pointed out that there is no level of alcohol which does not impair a driver's judgment and neuro-muscular coordination. The B.M.A. has admitted that a driver cannot safely take 80 mg. in his blood. Some impairment is nearly always evident even at lower level. This impairment is not evident to the person himself or to other people who talk to him. It is evident only if the alcohol content in the blood measured, or other similar tests are carried out.
According to the White Paper, an American survey showed that on average the risk of accidents begins to rise after the 40 mgm. level has been passed, in which case the figure of 80 mg. seems rather high. I wonder whether the Government have yielded to pressure on this point. I know that a lot of discussion has gone on between doctors, lawyers, the police and everybody else as to what the level should be, and I am not at all happy with this figure. I believe that it should be lower.
There is the safeguard that the Road Traffic Act will deal with people who have an alcohol level below that provided for in the Bill and who show clinical evidence of having had too much to drink, but the trouble with writing this level of 80 mg./100 ml. into the Bill is that it will encourage motorists to think that they can drink up to that amount with impunity. It has been suggested that breathalysers might be installed in public houses and at hunt balls.
I would point out to those who suggest this that when people are leaving public houses or similar places they will test themselves on these machines and if the machines show that their blood alcohol does not exceed the 80mg. figure they will drive off in their cars regardless of the fact that they may not be in a fit state to drive a car.
We are told that if the Bill is passed we may have pocket drink meters for sale at 2s. apiece in all the shops. This level is an arbitrary one, and I welcome the fact that it can be altered by the Minister. I hope that the figure will be lowered eventually. In fact, I hope that in the end no alcohol will be allowed in the blood of drivers. As it is, we

shall have people going into the streets and thinking, "I can avoid the consequences of a police check because I have passed my little test". There are four stages of drunkenness—dizzy, delirious, daring and dead drunk. In my opinion, a person may be able to reach the final stage and still pass the test of his little pocket meter—which might have broken down that day and which will show a reading less than 80 mg.
The Bill in that respect makes a mockery of the excellent slogan which was put out by the previous Minister of Transport, "Do not ask a man to drink and drive". If we are asking him not to drink, why imply that he can drink until his blood-alcohol level reaches 80 mg.? We should say, "Do not ask a man to drink more than 80mg./100ml. and drive". I hope that eventually we will introduce the type of legislation which exists in Sweden, where a person is literally not expected to drink and drive.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) went through the laborious process of reading out the instructions for the use of the breathalyser. The instructions for the use of anything sound far more complicated, if they are read out, than is the case in practice, when one is given the instrument and told to use it. The right hon. Gentleman implied that it would be beyond the average individual to breathe out for 15 seconds into this complicated machine. If a man can drive a motor car fast; if he has taken driving lessons, and has learned how the car works and how to drive it, surely it will not be beyond him to breathe into a breathalyser for 15 seconds.

Mr. Webster: What about the bronchial asthmatic? How will he do it?

Dr. Summerskill: He will come under the exceptions. He will be able to have a blood test. Not everybody will have to use this instrument. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe made far too heavy weather of the conditions that we will see on the roadside as we go by.
I welcome the fact that, after a long time, a policeman's opinion will be given greater weight. I have always thought that a policeman's judgment of the extent of a person's intoxication when found driving a car should be given far more


consideration by the courts. At the moment, his opinion is often overridden. His nose will not be put out of joint by the breathalyser test, because it has been pointed out that if a constable has reasonable cause to suspect that somebody has alcohol in his body because of the way he is behaving, and so on, he will be able to ask the man to take the test and, if the test is refused, to take him to the police station.
The Bill will put a stop to the practice of people refusing to allow a sample of their urine to be taken because they know that it will incriminate them when their cases go to court. Many people know that it is possible for them to refuse to supply a specimen. Those who do not know give in and conform to what the police ask of them, but those who are a little wiser refuse, and although this may be held against them in court the jury has no specific evidence from a test as to how much alcohol was in the urine. The Bill will remedy that situation.
I hope that a police doctor will be at the police station to supervise the taking of blood samples and deal with asthmatics and people suffering from similar disabilities, and will also be able to give evidence as to the clinical state of the person who is charged. All these things will help the jury to decide upon their verdict.
The pathological laboratory test is vitally important to a jury. It provides them with something which they can firmly get their teeth into instead of having two doctors wrangle between themselves and trying to sway them one way or the other as to the extent of a person's intoxication.
I welcome the Bill, particularly Part I, as being a very good step in the right direction. The level may need to be altered, but at the same time our roads will become much safer from this type of driver. We have had enough of appeals to the public before Easter and Christmas. The Bill will not affect 50 per cent. of drivers who do not drink at all. It will not affect most of the other drivers whose alcohol content in the blood does not nearly reach 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres.
I do not feel that it will interfere with the liberty of the individual, about which we have heard so much. It will be commonplace

on the road to see someone having this test. It will be no stigma on that person if the tests are random. If people have any sort of community sense, they will willingly agree to this test if they have nothing to fear from it. I would ask the House to accept the Bill as one which will prevent needless deaths on the road.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: I should like to preface my speech by congratulating the right hon. Lady the Minister upon her recent appointment and say that, as it is my responsibility to speak on transport matters for the Liberal Party, we certainly wish her well. I know that she will not feel that I am detracting from the sincerity of that congratulation by paying tribute to her predecessor. It was for me a great pleasure and privilege to work with the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) during the last 14 months and I found him co-operative and helpful in every way and at all times. Moreover, I believe that he brought to his Ministry a real measure of purpose and was certainly, in every sense of the term, a most dedicated Minister.
We on this bench welcome the Bill, because it is a step towards dealing with the problem of the evermounting numbers of deaths and accidents upon our roads. No one with any sense of humanity or concern for his fellow man can be other than distressed by these continuously rising figures and the enormous amount of suffering which results from road accidents. It is not only a question of the deaths but of those people who are permanently maimed, often seriously, and whose lives are impaired by road accidents. These victims, too, must be our great concern.
The Bill has been criticised in some quarters for being too limited, but I do not think that that should prevent us from welcoming it. It makes a good start and, speaking for my colleagues, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing a Measure which will not be popular in all quarters. Certainly, for that reason, I hope that everyone who feels strongly about road accidents and death on the roads will do everything in his power to see that the Bill has a speedy passage through the House.
I should like to turn to one or two points in the Bill. I should like to deal with the first part, that dealing with drink and driving. There is no doubt that there is ample medical evidence to show that drink is a contributory cause of many accidents which occur on our roads. This has been proved in almost every country in the world and the evidence is beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, worth while to tackle this aspect of road accidents as a matter of priority. It is something which can be controlled and the measures suggested in the Bill go a long way towards controlling it.
Successive Governments, Conservative and Labour, have exhorted the public not to drink and drive and I know that the Ministers who have occupied the position now held by the right hon. Lady have done everything in their power, by way of publicity, posters and television broadcasts and every other means to try to persuade people to avoid drinking if they are going to drive. It is a tragedy that the recklessness of human nature and the inconsiderateness of man towards his fellows is such that all these admirable suggestions and pleas which have been made by successive Ministers of Transport have not been successful and it is, therefore, necessary for the House to legislate.
One point which causes me some concern is Clause 2(1). In this Clause, there is a notable absence of the words "reasonable cause". I still feel, in spite of the arguments advanced, that the police should have reasonable cause before requiring anyone to undergo a test to determine whether he has a dangerous amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. So far as I have been able to discover, there is no precedent for a law which allows the police to stop a person at random and cause him to undertake a test even though they may have no reason whatever for suspecting that he is drunk.
After all, we know that there are cases of a police officer, who is like any other human being, having a grudge against somebody else. I know that this is very rare, but such a thing has been known. He might humiliate this person by stopping him and reuiring him to undergo this test. There should be the provision of the words "reasonable cause to suspect." The right hon. Member for

Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) quoted the provisions of the Customs and Excise Act, but he is quite incorrect about this. The Customs and Excise Act of 1952 laid down very clearly that no officer shall be allowed to search baggage or an individual unless he has reasonable cause to suspect.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): If the officer has to have suspicions before he asks someone to undergo a test, does the hon. Member not realise that, as people passed by someone who has been stopped, they would realise that that person is suspected? How does he think I would feel or he would feel if we were stopped? There is a great advantage in having random checks. It is then the same for everyone and there is no disgrace.

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman is persuasive as always. This is the argument advanced by his right hon. Friend in her opening speech, that, by making these checks at random, there would be no disgrace attached to them. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not impressed with this argument. I still feel that, to introduce a new type of law, something for which there is no precedent, is something which this House should consider very carefully. I hope that an Amendment on this point will be introduced in Committee and accepted by the Government.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am following the hon. Member's argument with a good deal of sympathy, but could he clear up one point for me? Suppose there were such an Amendment and it was made a requirement that a police officer should have reasonable cause to suspect something or other before he applied the provisions of the Act. Would the hon. Gentleman say what kind of thing in his opinion would amount to "reasonable cause", which would fall short of grounds for making the arrest anyway?

Mr. Bessell: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next remarks. I suggest that this could be applied to a person coming out of a public house, hotel or bar in an obviously convivial state of, shall we say, happiness; to someone who appears to have been drinking; somebody whose car is not keeping an even course on the road, somebody who passes


through traffic lights at red late at night or somebody who commits an ordinary motoring offence. These and others could be suspect and subject to the check. It is the existing presentation of a completely new principle that troubles me and I hope that in Committee careful attention will be paid to the matter.
There is no doubt that the level of blood alcohol content has a varying effect on different individuals. This was emphasised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). While 80 mg. of alcohol in the blood might be regarded as a safe limit for some people, it cannot be so regarded for others. As a comparatively moderate drinker I am sure that it would be an unsafe limit for me. With that amount of alcohol in me I would probably become a bad driver. On the other hand, there are people for whom 80 mg. of alcohol might be a perfectly safe level.
I urge the Minister not to regard this as the final means of testing a person's ability to drive. For the time being this may be a good Measure, but I trust that note will be taken of other methods of testing reaction because many experiments are going on in various parts of the world to check the reaction of a driver, independent of the measured quantity. It would be wrong if the idea went forth from the House that because a person has under 80 mg. of alcohol in his bloodstream his is entirely safe, for the contrary might be true. For some people this level could be dangerous.
If anyone has any objection whatever to this part of the Bill he need only follow the advice of successive Ministers of Transport: "If you are going to drive, just don't drink." If anyone says to me that this is too great a price to pay for the safety of his fellow men, I reply that that person is irresponsible. We cannot allow this mounting toll of death on our roads to continue and we cannot act irresponsibly when we know that there is overwhelming evidence to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that by drinking and driving we are adding to the risk of accidents and putting at risk the lives of perfectly innocent people.
We did not have any detailed comment from the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) on the second part of the Bill, but I have no doubt that his right hon. Friend the Member

for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) will deal with the matter.

Mr. David Webster: My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) spoke for well over half an hour. He curtailed his remarks to preserve the rights of back benchers and pointed out that we would have a great deal to say on this issue in Committee.

Mr. Bessell: I accept that, and I was not being critical of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe. However, I hope that the right hon. Member for Monmouth will have more to say on this part of the Bill because there is no doubt that it is at least as important as the earlier part of the Measure. Most hon. Members will say that there is little in the second part of the Bill to be debated. It is comprised of admirable provisions and we owe a great debt to the right hon. Member for Hamilton, the father of the Bill.
Is the Minister satisfied that a sufficient number of men will be available in the police force or from another source to carry out the necessary tests, and will she consider recruiting special officers to ensure that adequate spot-testing of goods vehicles takes place?
I understood the right hon. Lady to say that there were about 100 new weighbridges. This is wholly inadequate. For some years I was associated with a large produce company in Canada. The regulations governing the weight of goods in vehicles is carefully observed in that country by every operator. That is because of the large number of weighbridges, so many that it is almost impossible for a heavy vehicle to avoid the weighbridge centres along the main roads, particularly on a long journey. We in this country have neglected this matter and, as a result, we have over-laden vehicles which are a source of accidents. I am glad that the Government are taking certain steps but I would feel happier if we could be assured that they are providing the necessary facilities to make this part of the Bill fully effective.
The question of overhanging loads on vehicles was raised yesterday at Question Time in connection with lights. However, this problem was not raised in


terms of the daylight hours. This is certainly a cause of mishaps. Indeed, the only occasion that I had anything approaching a serious accident was when I skidded on ice and my car went into the back of a vehicle which had an overhanging load. The wooden planks on the vehicle came through my windscreen and missed my head by inches. Overhanging loads are a dangerous hazard and I hope that provision will be made to make them illegal. There is no need for overhanging because vehicles can be constructed to carry the necessary long loads.
My hon. Friends and I wish the Bill a speedy passage. There are some minor Amendments which we would like to see made, but that will not cause us to see the Measure held up on its journey through Parliament.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: Part 1 of this Bill enacts provisions dealing with persons driving or in charge of vehicles after consuming alcohol. It is a timely Measure. I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said, and I have carefully read the White Paper on Road Safety Legislation. I am quite certain that both sources have presented ample material to justify this Measure. It is, however, our duty also to read anything in opposition. I therefore carefully read, as all other hon. Members probably read, the case presented by the Wine Trade Defence Committee; and particularly that booklet sent to hon. Members called " Alcohol and the Motorist" by a Dr. Bicknell.
I fully appreciate the suggestions made that this legislation is unfair. I think that some of the dangers referred to in that booklet are clearly exaggerated and can be guarded against. The Minister referred today to the number of vehicles on the road—in 1964, 12 million vehicles, and an estimated 20 million vehicles in 1975. She also referred to the number of people killed on the roads—nearly 8,000 killed in 1964, and a couple of hundred thousand or more injured in that year. Clearly, any step that will help reduce that terrible carnage is worth adopting, even if it means that there is some risk to law-abiding citizens.
I am only sorry that this Measure was not brought in earlier. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I remember the Report stage of the 1962 Road Traffic Bill, when a new Clause was moved by the then Opposition—this side, then—to enact that the presence of the prescribed quantity of alcohol in the blood or body should be conclusive proof that the ability of the person to drive was impaired—

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to say that I was on the Committee to which he refers. Does he recollect that at that time we were told that there was no efficient form of breathalyser which could be guaranteed to be accurate?

Mr. Weitzman: Plenty of material was provided. If the hon. Member looks up the details of the debate, and particularly the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, he will see that a tremendous case was presented. That new Clause was defeated by the present Opposition—the Government, then. Amongst those voting against it was the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). I wonder how many people might have been alive today if that provision had been brought into the law at the time.
Again, I would remind the House that in a debate in January 1964 on a Motion for further measures for road safety—a Conservative Measure, which was accepted by the House—this very topic was raised again—two years later, I would remind the hon. Member in view of his intervention. The subject was then raised again in no uncertain way. The Motion was accepted. It was one of those things that was suggested should be done, but nothing was done. Following that, if something had been done, I wonder how many people would have escaped injury. With that in mind, I welcome the introduction of the Bill that will considerably assist us in this problem.
The White Paper suggests that 6 per cent. of accidents might be caused by the effect of alcohol on drivers. A memorandum that was issued by this Wine Trade Defence Committee quoted Dr. Smeed as saying that if driving after drinking was prevented altogether in Great Britain it would reduce accidents


by only 5 per cent. To me, that would be enough justification for this Bill.
Having said that, I have one or two criticisms to make of this Measure, and I hope that the Minister will look at these matters again. There is a great deal in the objection made from the other side to spot examinations—stopping people and examining them in this way. Everyone agrees that the liberty of the individual must not be interfered with unless it is essential to do so, and everyone also agrees that if that liberty is interfered with, it should be interfered with only to the extent that it is absolutely necessary to do so.
Under Section 223 of the principal Act of 1960 a constable in uniform may require a person driving a motor vehicle on the road—and I emphasise "on the road"—to stop, and failure to do so is an offence. And, of course, the constable has a right to ask the person who has been stopped for his licence and for other details. Now, under Clause 2(1) of this Bill a constable in uniform may stop a driver, not only on the road but in a public place—so we have the addition—and require a specimen of breath. "Public place" is not defined, and the judicial decisions in regard to what is a public place vary in many cases. It should be defined in this Bill.
The position now is that any driver, under this provision, however faultless his driving may have been, even though there is nothing in his conduct or breath to evoke suspicion of any kind may, at the whim of a police constable, be stopped, and this demand made, not only in the road but in a public place—wherever that may be. Frankly, I believe that that goes too far.
I appreciate the argument that this is a dreadful state of affairs and that we must do something about it. I agree that we should curtail liberty, if that is essential, but we have to be very careful about the rights we confer on the police. I speak from some considerable experience in criminal cases, and I can only assure the House—and I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with me—that we want to be extremely careful in extending the rights of the police in this matter.
I would agree that if a constable has reason to suspect, from the driver's breath, from his conduct, from some circumstance, that his driving ability has been impaired by drink, he should have the right to stop that driver and demand that specimen of breath. The power as framed is too wide.
I invite the House to see what follows. If a driver refuses without reasonable excuse to provide a specimen of breath, he is liable to a fine of £50. There was an interruption by an hon. Member asking what was meant by "reasonable excuse". I do not know. What does "reasonable excuse" mean? It is not defined anywhere. The Minister said that it was left to the good sense of the court. That is all very well, but what does it mean? It is difficult to imagine what could be a reasonable excuse. The right hon. Lady said something about a doctor being in a hurry. I do not think a court would accept that as a reasonable excuse. It might or it might not.
If the driver does not provide a specimen and the constable has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his body, any alcohol, he can arrest him without a warrant. He is then taken to the police station and asked to provide a specimen of blood or urine. If he refuses, under Clause 3(2,a) he is to be treated as guilty of the offence under Clause 1. He is to be punished as if he had committed the actual offence.
Suppose that a driver is indignant with the police for stopping him for no reason and he is a little pigheaded. He adopts the attitude of saying, "I shall not have the test taken. You can charge me and I shall prove to the court that I have had no drink today and bring evidence of passengers and others to show that my driving ability was not impaired by drink." He will not be allowed to present that evidence to the court. The very fact that he has refused to provide the specimen of breath makes him punishable as if he were guilty of the offence and he cannot dispute the guilt.
That is wrong. It is the first time in our history that we have had the position that a person can be held to have committed a crime even though he has not committed that crime. The prosecution is not called upon to prove it. That provision is wrong and goes too far. Note that the driver is liable under Clause 2(3)


to a fine of £50 or failing to provide a specimen of breath. The court will have the evidence that he refused to provide a specimen. The judge or jury dealing with the matter will take that into account if he is charged with an offence under Clause 1.
I press the Minister not to dismiss this as something which does not matter very much. It is a matter of great consequence to the question of the right of individual liberty. It may be weighed against the evil which is wrought by drivers taking alcohol, but setting one against the other and considering the matter carefully, I suggest that the case is not made for spot tests. Moreover, the provision I have referred to which makes a man punishable as if he were guilty of a crime when there is no proof that he has committed it, is wrong.

Mr. George Thomas: Could my hon. and learned Friend give an idea of how many people who knew that they had been drinking too much would be willing to have the test if it were not obligatory?

Mr. Weitzman: All I ask is that careful consideration should be given to this matter—

Mr. George Thomas: It has been.

Mr. Weitzman: —and that it should not be lightly dismissed. Our criminal justice is something which we ought to treasure. The liberty of the individual is a golden principle which runs through our law. Please do not break it unless it is absolutely essential to do so.
Is it intended under Clause 2(5) that a constable shall have the right to enter a person's house? As I read the subsection he would have the right to enter a house and demand or take a specimen although in the ordinary way he cannot do so without a search warrant. That needs to be looked into. I should like to have the answer to that question.

Mr. Bessell: Would the hon. and learned Member agree that if it is possible for a constable to enter a house without a warrant, a situation might well arise in which a person, having driven home, might have several drinks at home and be subject to this penalty even though he has not driven after drinking?

Mr. Weitzman: I do not want to make further points on that. I turn to a point with which my hon. Friend the Undersecretary might agree. Under Clause 1(1,a) on summary conviction a man may be sent to prison for four months, fined £100, or both. Why is the period four months? Is it deliberate in order to allow the accused person to elect to go for trial by jury? If it were three months he would not have that right. I am not expressing any view in regard to that, but it might be considered because we know that in motor cases juries are notoriously unwilling to convict and it might be that it would be better to alter the four months to three months in order that such a case might be tried in summary fashion.
Part II deals with goods vehicles. As far as it goes, its provisions are excellent. The introduction of a system of type approval for new goods vehicles; the onus upon the manufacturer to obtain a certificate; the provisions with regard to compulsory testing; the power to prohibit the driving of unfit vehicles, and the duty to keep records, are all necessary and welcome provisions.
I tell the Minister frankly that I am disappointed at the limited scope of the Bill. It is called the Road Safety Bill. A Road Safety Bill should be much more comprehensive and should cover many things vital to road safety, apart from the effects of alcohol and certain matters with regard to goods vehicles. It is true that under Section 64 of the principal Act the Minister has power to make regulations covering a great variety of subjects. Under Clause 7(1) of this Bill that power is extended, but, whether it be by the Bill or whether it be by regulations, there is surely so much more that could be done and should have been done.
For example, in their White Paper which was the prelude to the Bill the Government say that it must always be the responsibility first of the manufacturer to see that the vehicle is fit to drive, but the Government must lay down safety standards and ensure that they are complied with. Has enough been done in this direction? I know that British motor manufacturers have a proud record in many respects, but is it not important


that there should be compulsory constructional standards to which all manufacturers must conform? Is there not a tendency to specialise in flashy, tawdry gimmicks, instead of concentrating on stability?
May I mention just a few of the things which, I suggest, should be considered? Should not all cars have sturdy bumpers or fenders fixed at a standardised height from the ground? Is not this particularly necessary with commercial vehicles? Indeed, it has often been urged that they should be protected on all sides to stop smaller vehicles, cyclists, or even pedestrians, from becoming wedged under them. Many an accident has happened in this way. Should not the interiors of all cars be padded? I am told that, unlike many American cars, many of our own cars are built without a separate steel chassis framework for body rigidity. Has enough been done to tackle the problem of fumes and smoke? What about dust and other similar substances blown off open lorries, causing discomfort and danger to pedestrians? What about uniform street lighting particularly in towns?
On Friday last there was a very interesting and useful debate on the need for better and higher standards of driving instruction and education. Many useful suggestions were made. Many Questions are tabled on these and other matters and we are constantly told that expert bodies are examining them and advising the Government and that soon—very soon—something will be done. We now have a woman Minister of Transport for the first time. What a great opportunity this is for her to deal with road safety in a real, energetic fashion.
I welcome the Bill as a first useful and necessary Measure, but I hope that it is only the prelude to the adoption of many other Measures to help to deal with this terrible problem.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I have sat through this debate since half-past four, so practically every single argument that could be used has already been used. As all my best points have already been made, I propose to make a very short contribution to the debate.
I cannot agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)

that we on this side have been emotional in our approach. I think that we have put forward strong, rational, logical arguments. I appeal to the Government to listen to what we have said. Practically everyone who has spoken agrees that it is right to create this new offence, with the automatic conviction that will follow, although I am certain that not everyone outside the House will agree with us. That fact must be faced.
I want to say a few words on the prescribed limit, which I believe may be too low. I realise that the B.M.A suggests a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg. The report of the British Medical Association stated that there can be few people whose ability to drive properly was not impaired by blood alcoholic concentration in excess of a figure of 80. It follows that there must be some people, however few, whose ability would not be impaired at that level, and yet they will be liable to disqualification under the Bill.
In their earlier report in 1960, the British Medical Association published interesting conversion tables showing the blood alcoholic concentration on certain minimum intakes of beer and whisky. The figures are revealing. As little as two pints of beer can produce a concentration of 73 mgs.; two and a half pints of beer can produce a reading of 92, and a reading of 90 can be produced by less than five whiskies. To many people, that is not a great deal of drink.
The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax made a great point of the fact that a small sherry was a lot of drink for her, but many people would not regard two and a half pints as a great deal of beer. I recently purchased two Alchotest machines, one of which I lent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne). This German machine is set to indicate a reading of 70, and not 80 as specified in the Bill.
In view of today's debate, I decided last week when travelling back to my constituency to try a simple test on myself. I bought a half-bottle of British Railways claret, which I drank with a meal on the train. I am saying nothing against British Railways; both the claret and the meal were extremely good. The point is that I did not drink the claret on an empty stomach but took it with a steak in the train.
I then returned to the privacy of my carriage. As nobody else was about, I carried out a test with the machine and to my horror discovered that I had failed. I now realise that I would have been wiser had I waited 25 minutes instead of ten minutes. The fact is that four not-so-large glasses of claret are roughly equivalent to two pints of beer, which give a reading of 73. I was 100 per cent. sober. I went on working in the carriage and I drove home confidently when I reached my station. I admit that the figure shown by the machine was only 70, but that is getting near to the level of 80 which is specified in the Bill.
Other countries have figures a good deal higher in their legislation. I do not expect the Minister to be able to furnish figures without notice, but perhaps he may confirm my figures in correspondence. I am told that in Austria and Belgium, a figure of 150 is accepted, and in Switzerland a figure of 100. In Germany the mandatory figure for drivers of cars is 150 and for motor-cyclists 130. I am told that in Australia a figure of between 50 and 150 is admitted as evidence, but as sufficient evidence on its own, and that only when the figure reaches 150 is it regarded as sufficient for a conviction. I must admit there are countries where lower figures are accepted. In Czechoslovakia the figure is 30.
I realise that the prescribed limit can be altered by the Minister from time to time by means of Statutory Instrument, but I should have thought that it would be far wiser to start at a high figure and to reduce it later, if necessary, rather than to try and increase it at a later stage. I ask the Government to consider this possibility, which perhaps we can discuss in Committee.
I shall not make a long speech about random checks. Powerful arguments have been advanced from this side of the House against random checks. Obviously, if random checks are employed, more people would be caught, but a grave disadvantage of random checks will, however, be the loss of the good will of the motorist, on which the success of the Bill depends. In her opening speech, the Minister made it clear that she wishes to have the good will of the motorist, but she will lose it with random checks.
Sometimes—perhaps often—the party opposite make the mistake of being entirely right in theory but wrong in practice.
That really is my criticism of the Bill. Although I believe that it is unnecessarily harsh in practice and that in Committee we shall have to make it more lenient, the Bill should have a Second Reading because it is right in theory.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. I promise the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that I will share the remaining time with him, for it is only right that he should take part since he endeavoured to introduce last June a Bill of this kind.
It is odd that tonight I find it difficult to equate my position in June with my position in this debate. Fundamentally, in June I was taking up precisely the position that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are taking today. Then, they were taking the opposite view. In June, I was told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that I was not aware of the importance of trying to stop drunken driving and that I should be prepared in the circumstances to accept some loss of individual liberty in order to save lives. Today, they have expressed the opposite. They say that we should not give up any liberty. One hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that he would always vote against such a proposal.
I believe that my right hon. Friend has attempted with this Bill to face the situation. Any decision involving freedom of the individual inevitably brings out those for and those against. I want to comment on one aspect of Part I—the spot-checks. When I spoke on the Bill of the hon. Member for Crosby, I tried to illustrate how difficult it is to take spot checks of people who have imbibed more than the prescribed limit. I went through a long series of discussions to show how difficult it would be.
I said that if we were trying to be logical we should go back to the cause of the problem and not just deal with the effect, which is what my right hon. Friend proposes in this Bill. I said that to be logical we must try to stop people


from drinking in the first place. It is not sufficient to find them on the road unfit to drive and then impose penalties. By that time they may have killed someone.
One should go back to the cause. I understand clearly that we are trying to get people to be responsible to themselves, to discipline themselves, to say to themselves, "I will not drink if I drive." But it may take a considerable time before people are able to impose such self-discipline on themselves.
I see, therefore, that we must have some form of legislation which will help towards this self-discipline, but surely the best way to stop people driving cars while drunk is to concentrate on the obvious places. As I said last June, the obvious places are outside public houses, anywhere where dinner dances are being held and hotels. A police officer standing outside such a place would probably find that 50 per cent. of those he might stop had imbibed more than the prescribed limit.
If one knows that such a situation exists, it is surely indefensible to say that we must introduce random checks, well knowing that if attention were given to certain places the police could be sure of finding offenders. It is on this point that I take issue with my right hon. Friend.
Another problem is how to get sufficient police to make this method effective. We must ensure that the Bill can be implimented or it will become a laughing stock. If ways and means can be found to ensure that the checks are made at the right places, they will have a greater impact on the problem.
I intervened earlier to explain what happened to me following the debate in June. I said that I had thought after that debate that we would have political trouble, but in fact I was subjected to tremendous pressure from brewery interests because I suggested what I thought was the logical line. I committed a further error because I said that I drank whisky and did not take water or soda with it, and I was bombarded by the teetotallers and the churches because I had had the effrontery publicly to say that I drank whisky, even though I explained that I did not drink when I was about to drive. It is a problem to find out exactly how

far individuals are prepared to go to help in dealing with the problem.
I have tried to follow the argument of hon. Members opposite about random sampling, but until we get an alternative I find myself able to support it as a first stage. In June, the hon. Member for Crosby said that we could not find the whole solution at once and must take just one stage at a time. I took issue with him then and adduced other arguments to show why I thought that it could not be taken one stage at a time. However, my right hon. Friend is doing just what he asked.
I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members opposite are so firm in their view that they will vote against random sampling. It may not be perfect and it may not reduce accidents as quickly as some may think and it may not work as well as some other ways might, but it must commend itself to the House as making an impact, if only psychologically, if only because people will think that there is a chance, however slight, of their being subjected to a spot-check.
One hon. Member said that people would work out their gambling chances of being caught and that in the clubs and the pubs and spot-checks would become a bit of a joke, but I do not believe that people are like that. That is reducing the mentality of the nation to a low level. People do not go out deliberately to get drunk. That is not how it happens. One meet friends and has talks and discussions and inevitably one has drinks, and at the end of the day, when one can do nothing about it, one finds that one is incapable. But I do not know of anybody who goes out and intelligently and deliberately decides to get drunk and then to drive home. It was rather devaluing the mentality of our people to suggest that there would be gambling stakes on whether people were caught.
I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend has attempted to face up to a serious problem. I sincerely hope that the House will not try to make this a political issue, for it transcends political lines. I felt tonight that some hon. Members opposite were beginning to give the impression that the Government were somehow acting in an arbitrary manner and becoming officious and so on, but that is hardly credible. The problem has been discussed


by both sides of the House for a long time. Last June, I was at variance with the hon. Member for Crosby because I was regarded as not being serious enough or officious enough.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not try to make what is a tremendous problem into a political issue. Someone has to do something, because we cannot continue to have people killed and maimed like this. My right hon. Friend was right today when she said that unless something is done quickly, we shall have an even more difficult problem in the future.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), I do not feel that the Minister has gone as far as she might have. I am sorry that there was not a Clause relating to the licensing of goods vehicles. One of our road safety problems could be solved if we could ensure that before a licence was granted for a goods vehicle the owner had to show that he had a garage for it. This would immediately take care of one of the big problems in conurbations, when these vehicles are parked unlit in side roads, often two abreast, so that one has half the road to get through. It seems that my right hon. Friend has to face this issue. These large vehicles coming into the conurbations and parking on the road are the cause of many accidents because traffic cannot properly get past. Often chances are taken and accidents happen.
The opportunity could have been taken to ensure that the licensing authority must be satisfied that these vehicles are properly garaged at night or else the licence would not be granted. My hon. Friend was quite right to touch upon the construction of the vehicles. One of the things he might have suggested was the need for sliding doors. I do my best to look in my rear mirror and wing mirrors to see if anybody is coming by, but I have often opened my door only to discover that I was about to cause an obstruction or accident. I touch wood and hope that I will be lucky in the future.
We should introduce the concept of sliding doors, not only in goods vehicles but in private cars as well. I know that it is a construction problem and that

there are tremendous difficulties but we pride ourselves on our ability to seize a problem and find an answer. This is an attribute which I am trying to spread in Europe, that Britain is outstanding in her ability to solve problems. Manufacturers ought to get down to this. I do not know the figures but I am told that the number of accidents occurirng as a result of car doors being opened and cyclists, motor cyclists and pedestrians being hit are quite large.
I welcome this Bill. It is a great attempt by the Minister to solve the problem. It may not be all that it ought to be and it may not solve all the problems in one swoop. But at least we do know that the people will see the magnitude of the task and that we can rely upon them to understand that they have to discipline themselves in order to make the country safe for everyone to work and live in.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) has given his solution to a main issue of the Bill as it has emerged during this debate—the random tests. It is what I would call the "pub" car park test. I do not think that it is any more acceptable to the public than the form of test which is given in the Bill.
I find myself more in agreement with the powerful argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman), who said that a constable should have reasonable cause before using the breathalyser test. I do not, however, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he complained that the Bill had not been brought in by previous Governments. A Government can lead public opinion, but can only move as fast as public opinion allows. Public opinion was not ready much earlier for this legislation.
It is a happy day for me, because I made my maiden speech on road safety 12½ years ago. I was then thought to be a crank for suggesting that drink had anything substantial to do with road accidents. I was even crankier for suggesting that there should be a limit to alcohol in the blood and that it should be an offence if that limit were exceeded.

Mr. Weitzman: Perhaps public opinion had not moved to that extent.

Mr. Page: That is my point: public opinion had not moved. Over the past dozen years, it has gradually moved towards an acceptance of the fact that drink and driving cause accidents. It has also moved towards an acceptance of the fact that defects in vehicles cause accidents.
When making my maiden speech on the subject I was apparently a crank for suggesting that defective vehicles were a substantial cause of accidents. But public opinion has moved over the years. There is no doubt now that it is entirely accepted that drink causes accidents when taken by the driver and that defects, particularly in heavy vehicles, contribute to accidents.
The Minister told us, in connection with drink and driving, that if the Bill were successful it could prevent 18,000 to 32,000 casualties a year—that is, at least about 50 casualties a day—and that it could reduce the extent of injury from accidents. We can quibble over the 5 per cent. or 9 per cent., or whatever it may be, but if there is a saving of only 1 per cent. in casualties that is a saving of 11 casualties a day, and surely that is well worth while.
When the Minister was talking about the danger which arises from defective lorries, I do not know why she slipped in the word "only". She said that when spot-checks were taken on lorries "only" one in 10 was sent off the roads at once. One in 10 lorries stopped on the roads were killer lorries and were taken off the roads at once. I do not know why we have tolerated this for so long. This legislation, indeed, should have been on the Statute Book long ago. This is only one in 10 of the lorries which were stopped. I presume that the police stop lorries because they look as if they are defective. One in 10 works out at 14,000 killers on the road of those inspected that year.
The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North said that the Bill did not deal with enough road safety subjects. What about dangerous loads in lorries—the chemical loads? Many of us have pleaded for regulations on these for the past 10 years. I have been told again and again that the Home Office—and I hope that the

Home Secretary will deal with this when he replies—has the power to make the regulations in this instance. Neither the Home Secretary nor the Minister of Transport has dealt with this subject over many years. So we have dangerous loads spilled on the roads, causing extreme danger.
Once when some acid burst out of a very large tanker, members of the local fire brigade had not a clue what to do with it, so they hosed down the road and poisoned the drains of a whole village. It took a great deal of time to get rid of the substance. This is the sort of accident which may happen from dangerous loads and about which there should be proper regulations.
As with drink in the driver, so with defects in the vehicles and danger in the loads, I think that it is now accepted that we have killers on the roads. But there has been hesitation in presenting this legislation because of the difficulty of enforcement. How can the law be a factor in road safety, a factor in preventing accidents? As is recognised in the Bill, there is no other effective way than by making it an absolute offence, and an offence regardless of what the actual risk may be when it is being committed. We adopted that principle many years ago with a speed limit in the built-up areas, and it is an offence to go above the limit whatever the immediate danger may be. I recollect that when it was introduced there was a 50 per cent. reduction in accidents to vehicles to which that speed limit was then applied. I hope that the right hon. Lady will have the same success with her Bill.
It is the same principle with the two parts of this Bill, the alcohol limit and the plating of goods vehicles. There is an absolute offence no matter whether there is danger at that moment or not. For that reason, there can be no other way than for the police to apply some such test without evidence of any danger to the public at that moment.
I come back to my point that it is quite sufficient to provide a test which will be given only when a constable thinks that there is reasonable cause. I cannot see the difficulty about it. To put in the words "reasonable cause" will not harm the right hon. Lady's Bill. I imagine that is what is done in the stopping of lorries, because the police stop a lorry only when


they have reasonable cause to think that it is a defective vehicle, whatever the law may be on the point. In the same way, the police will want to stop only those whom they have reasonable cause to think have been drinking too much.
The right hon. Lady made the point that a driver may not know of the impairment of his ability, and that, therefore, there must be random checks. But the impairment of his ability to drive is not unobservable by others. All of us know that, driving home from the House at 11 or 12 p.m., it is possible to spot the fellow who has been drinking. He cuts in, he drives too fast and he jumps the amber light. Those would be reasonable causes—particularly at that time of night—for a constable to stop a man, and in my opinion a constable should have reasonable cause before he applies the test.
I am sure that the Bill will be successful in reducing road accidents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) said in opening the debate from this side of the House that a conviction for drinking and driving will become more and more a social disgrace as the Bill bites. That is surely what we are trying to do by this legislation. We are trying to change social and employment habits. We want to make it a social disgrace to drink and drive and a commercial disgrace to operate a defective lorry. That is what we want to impress upon the public, and that is what I hope the Bill will succeed in doing.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: It is a privilege in such a debate to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), whose activities in recent years have done something to form public opinion in favour of a Bill of this character.
These are important matters which we discuss, because they relate to the toll of road casualties, which is the concern of both sides. May I say to the right hon. Lady the Minister of Transport that, of course, we must stress these casualties, but let us also stress the falling casualty rate per million vehicle miles, because some tribute must be paid to those in her own Ministry, under various Governments, who battled against the very difficult problem of keeping the casualty

rate per number of vehicles down. It is descending too slowly, but it is still descending.
It is important, because it touches on the conflict between liberty and order, which is always the problem of every Home Secretary; and it is important because it touches significantly on the relations between the police and the public, about which I would like to say a few words a little later.
I hope that in so far as it is humanly possible we shall seek agreement on Measures of this kind, at least in the area where agreement is possible. The first thing that I would say about the Bill is that, inevitably perhaps, it is a limited approach to a large problem. An enormous number of factors enter into road safety. The road programme enters into it, and as we phase it out we have to admit to ourselves that in doing so we defer the possibility of grappling with some of these measures of road construction which might decrease the number of accidents.
There are other matters which must be considered, such as those which were touched on during the debate a few days ago. The standard of driving instruction is vital in matters of this kind, and I would have hoped that in a Bill of this character some of those considerations might also have been brought in.
The main concern here has been the question of drink and driving and I shall not deal with the other part of the Bill, which is concerned with road haulage, not because it is not important, but because, apart from some Committee points, there is virtually complete agreement about it. I shall concentrate my remarks on that part of the Bill which deals with drink and driving.
In that part of the Bill set out in the White Paper we have the fact that at the blood-alcohol level which is to be an offence, the danger of an accident is twice what it would be with a sober driver. This is an important consideration which must be taken seriously by the whole House. The trouble with these statistics is that they tend to prove either too little or too much. When I was preparing myself for this debate I delved a little more deeply into the Grand Rapids Survey, which analysed much more than drink. It found that in the age groups 16 to 25,


and over 75, the chances of an accident were also twice that of an ordinary sober driver, and I ask the House to reflect on what that means. It means that there is a large body of people on the roads whose chances of an accident are just as great as those of the fuddled driver.
There are questions on which any Minister of Transport has to reflect. This is not an argument for not doing what is in the Bill, but it is an argument for seeing whether anything else can be done. Have we got the age level right? Can we face the fact that we have these peak accidents at the age of 17? Is the driving instruction of young people before they are left in charge either of motor vehicles or of motor cars adequate to the responsibilities which they have?
If one looks at the admirable statistics issued by the Ministry with regard to motor cyclists, one finds that, if one takes the casualty rate of the motorist as one, the casualty rate of the motor cyclist is very nearly 10. This is getting up to a level far beyond the "twice" which we are talking about in the Bill. It is getting nearer to the level of the highly intoxicated driver.
If we are to discuss statistics of this character we must take into account their full implications. I am not speaking against motor cyclists, but we must realise that there are on our roads, every day of our lives, thousands of people, usually young people, in charge of motor cycles, and that their chances of having an accident are equal to those of people whose blood alcohol content is far above the 80 mg. level, and much nearer to the 150 level.
I raise these questions because, in a Bill like this, we should consider the full implications of the various studies which have taken place, and give equal weight to these other matters. Do not let us be content, this evening, to say that we have taken a great step forward and have done something about drink and driving; let us realise that there are many other areas which stretch far beyond this rather narrow one, which involves only 25,000 out of the 300,000 accidents which occur every year.
In the survey which forms the basis of the Bill it was pointed out that the drinking driver—the man who takes drink from time to time—was 40 per cent.

under-represented in the total number of accidents that occur. This does not mean that it is a good thing to drink and drive, but it shows that this is a rather more complicated question than it might appear to be at first sight. Many other factors are involved. Sometimes people who do not drink at all are less stable characters, or become more impatient, or are part of a younger age group, or belong to another category which is responsible for a substantially greater proportion of accidents, as observed in the Grand Rapids survey.
The 80 mg. level is undoubtedly one which everybody would accept as a suitable level to start with. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)—not in her remarks about the vanity of men, but in her view that it would be dangerous and unwise to take this level as a sort of norm which people could drink up to. I understand that a man of average size, like myself, could, on some assumptions and some conversion rates, drink an amount which I am sure would make me quite incapable of driving. I do not propose to attempt that experiment. When I see the levels which are accepted in Germany and Belgium I am lost in admiration for the capacity of the people of those countries to absorb alcohol.
In any event, there is not much between the two sides of the House on this aspect of Clause 1. We agree that this should be an offence, and the Bill will make it an offence. We have the objective test of the blood-alcohol level.
The Bill will bring about an enormous change in the present law. The Minister rather underplayed its effect. Although her speech did not bring the fact out, she probably realises what a dramatic change it will bring about in the present situation. At the moment, impairment has to be proved, and those of us who have any knowledge of these matters recall the sort of evidence that is given. The jury hears the police doctor, the doctor called by the defence, and hears about the defendant's walking along a line, his pronunciation of words, and the strain which he was supposed to be under. In about half the cases which go before a jury there is an acquittal. I was studying the north-eastern survey conducted some time ago, in which it was discovered that the average blood-alcohol level of persons acquitted was 180 and the average


level of those for whom they managed to secure convictions was 220, a level at which most people would have been nearly incapacitated.
The change from that position to the Measure which we are discussing today is complete. We should not underestimate what we are doing. Under the Bill, a completely new offence is created, that of having a blood-alcohol level of 80 or above, which is a completely plain, factual offence.
The question is: should the tests be random? I hope that the Minister of Transport and the Home Secretary will not be too emphatic about all this this evening. I hope that they will listen to and reflect upon what has been said, not from one side of the House but from both. There is not a party in the House which has not expressed grave doubts about this approach. This has come from the Conservative benches, in speeches like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) made a powerful speech criticising this approach and, for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) reserved his judgment on this matter until the Committee stage.
In the light of all that, and having regard to the desirability, in Bills of this kind of trying to bring all sides together, I would ask the Home Secretary to say that he will at least reflect upon, carefully read and consider the views which have been put. I have rather grave doubts about this method. In her speech, the Minister put first the fact that, in her judgment, it would be less invidious to motorists. I beg her to think that over. The indignation among motorists will be considerable, whether it is right or wrong, and she should not go away with the idea that this approach will be regarded as less invidious. It will be very much resented.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) compared this with vehicle testing. I hope that the House will be careful about comparing vehicles to human beings. Humanity is one of the factors which has to be considered in the House. Most of us are here at all

only because we have some knowledge of the way in which our friends behave, and they do not think about this as they think about vehicles. To stop a vehicle and look at the brakes is quite a different matter from stopping a man and asking him to breathe into a rubber bag. These distinctions must be very clearly drawn.
Above all, if the police are patrolling the roads, or even ringing the public houses and trying to take a scoop of apparently innocent motorists with no reasonable cause at all except that they are driving motor cars, this will do damage to a situation which should be giving the right hon. Gentleman great concern, and is certainly giving me great concern—the relations between the public and the police. Somehow, for wider reasons which I need not go into, we must get the public on the same side as the police.
We do not have that at the moment and I must say that some of the things I have seen on television would not appear to be calculated to achieve that cooperation. The Home Secretary must be as worried as I am about this. We must persuade the public that the police are on their side.
I thought that Lord Devlin, to quote from his Frank Newsam Memorial Lecture—and I am not quoting him because he is either for or against breathalysers; I do not know his views on the subject—put it well in that lecture, which was entitled "Police In A Changing Society", when he said that the more important thing was to remember
…that the police were continually being brought into disagreement and conflict with fundamentally law-abiding members of the public on whose co-operation they must rely in the fight against real crime.
This is the fundamental problem of the police today.
In his conclusions Lord Devlin used these words, which we should bear in mind:
The British people"—
he was talking about the balance between liberty and order—
are hard taskmasters. They have from the earliest times had a love of freedom which has expressed itself in an intolerance of tyranny and at the same time a desire for order and good government which they know is unobtainable without respect for the law. Respect is the word. One must not expect them to be affectionate to those whose duty


it is to enforce the law. I know that a grudging respect is a poor return for the sort of service the police are asked to give. Yet it is because the British have learnt to measure out stingily their grants of authority, so that it is just enough and no more, that they have, perhaps more successfully than any other nation, held the balance between order and freedom. The Police power oscillates uncomfortably at the point of balance and this is what gives every Policeman an exacting task. But the British way of life depends to a great extent on the way in which he discharges it.
There we have reference to the point of balance, I am afraid that if one asks the already over-burdened police to tour the country and pick up motorists just because they are motorists, one will get beyond the point of balance. Nor am I impressed by the argument that the police should ring public houses, hunt balls and the like and start testing people as they approach their motor cars. There are certain things which are clean outside reason from the point of view of asking the police to do them.

Mrs. Castle: Since the right hon. Gentleman accepts the 80 mg. limit, how would he enforce it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the right hon. Lady understands the Bill. In introducing it the Government are introducing a really fundamental change in the law of Britain. We are to ensure that in future, whereas in the past numbers of people were acquitted by juries, people will be convicted. That is absolutely certain as we now consider the Bill. I ask the right hon. Lady to take credit for what she is doing, because I assure her that she is doing a lot more than she seems to have understood. This is, indeed, a fundamental change in the law.
When we consider what will happen when an accident takes place we must bear in mind what is new and what is not new in terms of the law. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to the Customs and Excise Act. But the words about there being reasonable ground to suspect that an offence had been committed are in that Act. There is a difference in the Metropolitan area, but in normal cases those words are written into legislation in regard to stolen goods, even in the Regulation 18B. Always, or virtually always, in English law it is necessary to show some reasonable ground to suspect before the police can act. To

depart from that is a wide departure indeed.
This has been a good debate. It has not been a party discussion in that sense. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their views on a subject which is of great national concern. From both sides the Home Secretary has heard reasoned, argued cases against the random test. I think that he would be failing in his job and in his responsibility if he were now to say, "We must have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." In this case we really could discuss a matter of public importance more as a council of State, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will weigh the arguments that have been put to him.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) began by taking this debate fairly wide, going over a number of issues concerned with safety—and I do not complain of that in the least—which were not specifically concerned with drink. At one stage I thought he was getting rather near the danger of taking the view that because we could not isolate and solve every problem we should not seek to isolate and solve any problem. But he then came down firmly in favour of the 80 mg. in 100 ml. level, and the broad part of Part I—though he then, like most other hon. Members opposite, concentrated on the random test aspect of the matter. I shall have a good deal to say about that later in a speech in which I shall confine myself largely, as nearly every hon. Member has done, to Part I, partly because Part II is less controversial—although it contains some important provisions which should have been introduced long before—and partly because it was dealt with very thoroughly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
On Part II, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) who, while he agreed with the proposals in this Part, argued that the Bill should have increased the legal penalties which the courts can impose on employers when vehicles are proved to be dangerous, that we will carefully consider what he said about penalties and the outcome of court proceedings,


following the tragic incident to which he referred. The Government agree that there are some circumstances in which the present maximum penalties seem inadequate, and we shall consider, before the Committee stage, how any changes might best be made. My right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member about the point relating to drivers' hours.
For the rest of my speech, I turn back to Part I, some aspects of which have obviously excited some concern—at any rate, in some parts, and not confined completely to any particular part. Some persuasive speeches have been made. Frankly, I would say that before I took up my present office and looked at the problem closely, my instinctive feeling was to share these doubts, and departmentally, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman did not fail to point out, I have every reason to approach sceptically anything which imposes additional burdens on the police.
Of course, no Home Secretary, particularly at the present time, wants to put unnecessary burdens on the police, but to prove this point one has to show not only that new burdens are being put on the police, but also that they are unnecessary burdens; that they are not a proper and worth-while part of police duties. I cannot take the view that they are not a proper and a necessary part. The fact is that 8,000 people are killed on the roads every year, and a very large number more are maimed. Quite a proportion of these deaths and injuries result from accidents in which drink is a factor.
Some hon. Members opposite, and some organs of opinion outside, have recently got very excited—and I make no complaint about it—about the murder figures for last year. It has even been suggested that they provide a reason for going back on the legislation we passed. As I told the House last week, we do not yet know the final relevant figures, but we do know—and this is the significant point for this argument—that they will be very roughly of the order of 150. No one would begin to suggest that it was an improper use of police manpower to achieve even the smallest reduction in those figures, yet they are only 2 per cent. of the total of road deaths, and of those road deaths we might

eliminate up to 20 per cent.—1,600 a year—if we could get a general national acceptance of not driving after drinking considerable quantities. Let us, therefore, see this matter in proportion. This Bill will involve some limited additional strains on police manpower, but, as it offers some prospect of saving the lives of possibly ten times as many people as are murdered each year, I could not regard it as my duty as Home Secretary, even at a time of mounting crime, to resist such a limited claim on the police as the Minister of Transport is making.
Why have we legislated for this fixed blood-alcohol level of 80 mg. per 100 mls.? Because, as I think it has been generally agreed, the previous law was not biting effectively enough. It meant that except after an accident—and after an accident by definition is too late—practically no one was charged unless he showed signs of gross impairment, which generally came from having over 150 mg. of alcohol. Over and above this, there was still a high percentage of acquittals. It was not enough to have a sanction which worked when a man was ten times as likely to have an accident as if he were sober.
The new fixed level will apply when he is twice as likely to have an accident as he is when he has had no drink at all. It should cut out 90 per cent. of the accidents in which drink is a contributory cause. Is this enough? Should we go the whole way and ban driving after taking any alcohol, cut it out 100 per cent.? I should say on the whole "no" to this. A balance has to be struck between public danger and reasonable private freedom. I believe this provision does it at about the right level. To go further would produce rapidly diminishing returns for accident reduction and rapidly increasing inconvenience. The only absolute safety provision, as some hon. Member pointed out this afternoon, is one in which we ban not only driving after drink but driving in any circumstances. I therefore think that a level of 80 mg. per 100 ml. is reasonable. As a level it has been contested by very few people—not even, I note by the motoring associations.
Let me try to remove one misapprehension. A fixed level of alcohol in the blood does not mean that we are ignoring


the different effects which the same amount of alcohol has on different individuals. [Interruption.] I do not suggest that the right hon. Member said that we would.

Sir M. Redmayne: No one has made this point during the whole debate.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not know whether the right hon. Member heard him, but his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) was getting extremely near making that joint.
I should like to give the House a little information about the position as we see it. The blood-alcohol content produced by a given amount of drink varies considerably according to how used the individual is to alcohol and according to the circumstances particularly whether he has imbibed it with food or not and the time at which he has imbibed it. On the whole, the 80 mg. level is in practice unlikely to be produced by less than five single whiskies or their equivalent. Here we get to the figures which the right hon. Member was querying; it may require up to 12 single whiskies. This is not because the test is unreliable but because, broadly speaking, it measures not the amount of drink but the degree of intoxication and, therefore, of impairment.
In answer to the hon. Member for Chippenham, who produced the example of the unfortunate result of drinking half a bottle of British Railways claret, if he will not regard it as offensive, I should say that I think he was suffering from "mouth alcohol", against which we have provided.
So much for the fixed level and for fixing it at the 80–100 level. Both decisions, as the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe has said, have attracted relatively little criticism, either inside or outside the House. What has attracted more criticism, clearly, are the methods we propose for enforcing the new law. After listening to the debate very carefully, I believe that these objections are on the whole misconceived.
Let me try to deal with this at two levels. First, in my view the methods of enforcement flow almost inevitably from an honest acceptance of the new fixed level. Secondly, they are not in themselves nearly as objectionable as has been made out.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am listening with great interest to what the Home Secretary is saying. There are 12 million motor cars in Great Britain, which means that there are probably 20 million drivers. How are people going to find out what their ceiling is? This is a practical problem.

Mr. Jenkins: There are methods by which people could find out what their individual ceiling is, but I think that there are disadvantages in people trying to find out their ceiling and thinking that they are perfectly safe up to that ceiling. Therefore, I do not wish to encourage that approach. If I may be permitted by the hon. Gentleman to develop the fairly close argument which I was trying to put to the House when he interrupted me on an interesting but different point, the level of blood-alcohol ratio has been fixed, for reasons which I gave earlier and which have not been seriously challenged in this debate, at a level well below that at which the majority of drivers show any signs of obvious impairment. There is no possible means by which the police, without some sort of special check, could tell the difference between a car driven by a driver with 100 or 120 mg. and one with 60 mg. or nil in his blood. If they could not make a check without evidence of impairment, we should be back, whatever the Bill says, at an enforcement level of 150 mg. or higher—at an enforcement level, not at a legal level.
If we say that we believe in the 80 mg. level but refuse any means of enforcing it, we are indulging in a piece of organised hypocrisy. We would be back where we started, with no effective sanction against the person who is prepared to break the law in this respect—unfortunately, as we know from experience, many persons are—until the driver has become ten times as likely to have an accident as if he were sober. I do not believe that that is really what the House or the country wants. Therefore, there must be special checks, not based on driving or other behaviour which is in itself suspicious. Those checks could either be random, or they could be based on some objective circumstances not relating to the driver's behaviour which might give rise to suspicion—for instance, stopping all the drivers who left a particular pub or club, or whatever it might be. [Interruption.] I do not know why


the hon. Gentleman is saying "Absolute nonsense".

Mr. Carlisle: I am following the Home Secretary's argument and I have listened to almost all the debate. If the right hon. Gentleman follows his argument through to its logical conclusion in another field for which he is responsible, is he not saying that the police should be entitled to stop any person at any time and ask him to turn out what he has in his pockets because he might have a house-breaking implement in them?

Mr. Jenkins: What I am saying, and what is certainly accepted in another field, is that it is not much good talking about law enforcement unless there are effective means of detection. I am saying that there is no means with this new offence which we are creating of having effective detection without some form of special check. The point which I was on was whether this should be the random check, or whether it should be based on what I describe as some objective indication of suspicion but not directly related to the individual's behaviour.
I recognise that between these two methods it is possible for people honestly to take different views. On the whole, however, I think that the system by which the police fix upon a pub or club and check everybody who came away from it would lay the police open to more complaint that they were abusing their powers and that, apart from the danger of any such complaint, it would be less fair.

Mr. Bessell: Is there any other example in which the police are permitted to make a check of any kind without reasonable cause?

Mr. Jenkins: Under Part II of the Bill, which is accepted, the police will make the random check of lorries. I know, of course, that there is a difference between lorries and individuals. When a lorry is checked and it is discovered to be unsafe, one does not arrest or prosecute the lorry; it is the driver who is prosecuted. In the last resort, it is an individual with whom one is dealing.
Perhaps I may mention, because I have no desire to conceal anything from the House in this matter, the attitude of

the police to what we propose. The views of the police are divided. Chief constables generally recognise the need to strengthen the law against drunken driving. Some accept fully the case for random checks as the only way properly to enforce a statutory limit. Others are more conscious of the extra burden that this would place upon the police and of the risk to relations with the public which might be involved. They all recognise, however, as they obviously would, that it is for Parliament to decide what should be the laws which they have to enforce, and there is not the slightest doubt that they will carry out with complete loyalty whatever we as a House of Commons and Parliament decide.
It is important to deal with the misapprehensions which have been expressed to some extent either in this House or outside about the tests. Clearly, any test of this sort involves some inconvenience and some interference with individual liberty. Nobody denies that. It is certainly possible to exaggerate the interference. The whole process should not take more than five minutes at most and the test will be a simple one. A delay of five minutes can, of course, be a great nuisance to a motorist, but many similar time hazards are connected with motoring.

Sir M. Redmayne: Which process is the Home Secretary talking about?

Mr. Jenkins: The breathalyser process.

Sir M. Redmayne: Five minutes?

Mr. Jenkins: Up to five minutes, I said.

Sir M. Redmayne: For each case?

Mr. Jenkins: In most cases it will take less. I was giving a maximum period of up to five minutes. We do not envisage a position in which a queue would form. There would be no question of that. The whole process from being stopped to driving on again if the result were negative would not, in our view, take more than five minutes and it might well take less.
The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) raised a point concerning lonely roads. There is nothing new about police checks and the police stopping vehicles on lonely roads. But chief constables will, I know, use their discretion in this matter and certainly see that their officers behave responsibly.


There will be no question of the police cars which take part in the checks not being clearly identifiable. They will have flashing blue lights on the top and there is no reason why anyone should stop if he does not see what is clearly identified as a police car.
In addition, it is always open to the motorist to give a reasonable excuse for refusing the test. This might relate to his health or, in exceptional circumstances, to the urgency of his journey. In many cases, the police would no doubt accept an excuse, if reasonable, without trouble. It cannot be argued, on the one hand, that the police are desperately worried about the Bill exacerbating their relations with the public and, on the other hand, that they will apply the Bill unreasonably. I do not believe that they will for one moment. In many cases they will accept an excuse if reasonable. If they do not, the question of reasonableness can, in the last resort, be decided in the courts.
Then there is the question of whether the breathalyser is sufficiently accurate. Complete accuracy is not claimed for it. It is essentially a screening test. If the result is negative, that is the end of the matter. If it is positive, the motorist is asked to go to the police station where a blood test, which is more accurate, will be taken. There is no question of anyone being prosecuted on the result of a breathalyser test alone.
The right hon. Gentleman made a good deal of play with the figure of 5 per cent. falsely positive readings. We do not claim complete accuracy for the breathalyser test, but the position is not one in which someone with no alcohol in his blood will suddenly get a positive reading. The 5 per cent. of inaccurate readings might be ones in which a person with 75 mg. in his blood shows by mistake a reading of 80. I see no reason why, in practice, a motorist should not ask, if he so wishes and if he doubts the validity of the test, for a second breathalyser test before going to the police station. This is specifically what we propose in the case of the mouth alcohol problem of the hon. Member for Chippenham—the position where a falsely high reading is given because the motorist has had a very recent drink. There is such a problem, but the effects of mouth alcohol last only about 20

minutes, and this matter can and will, no doubt, be dealt with by the motorist who produces a positive result claiming that it is for this reason that he should be allowed to wait for an appropriate period and take a second test. But the fact is that, if a positive result is produced by a test, there is a 95 per cent. possibility that the motorist is above the permitted level and we cannot legislate in this matter without some inconvenience to people who are only near the level.
Then there is the question of whether the blood or urine tests impose an unreasonable burden on a suspected motorist. I do not think so. He will only be asked to take them if the result of the breathalyser test shows prima facie evidence of guilt. The blood test is extremely simple, painless and accurate and there is no relationship between it and the unpleasant medical process of pumping a sample of blood out of the arm. It involves the merest pinprick at the top of the thumb.
It is suggested that this should be done by a doctor as a protection, it is claimed, for the motorist. That is the desire of the motoring organisations. It is not thought that doctors will be loth to assist in the process. Unlike the present procedure, they will not be called upon to go to court to give evidence. It will be the right of the motorist to ask for a clinical examination if he wishes and thinks it desirable.
Then there is the question of the "in charge" cases. This is a somewhat unsatisfactory feature of the law as it stands. My right hon. Friend and I considered very carefully whether we could not get rid of the "in charge" offence altogether. We would greatly have liked to do so. But we found that there were two fairly insuperable objections. First, without it, one could not prevent a man who was manifestly impaired from driving—he might drive in the future—if one saw him drunk beside his car, except by making the police hang around almost indefinitely. Secondly, one could not in all circumstances deal with the position which might arise after an accident.
Nevertheless, we have been able substantially to reduce the objections to the drunk-in-charge offence. The difficulty here has always been that a man who is


driving and realises that he is somewhat affected by alcohol has been subject to two conflicting pulls. If he goes on he may run the risk of an accident, and if he stops, either to sit in his car and wait for a time, or to abandon it and go home by taxi or bus, he may well think that he is more likely to draw the attention of the police to himself.
But the public interest is, of course, much better served by his stopping driving, and the Bill goes a very long way to remove the conflict and gives him an incentive to stop driving. He will be forgiven the past, provided that he can show that he did not intend to go on driving, and from the motorist's point of view and the public's point of view that makes a substantial improvement.
I therefore commend to the House the scheme put forward in the Bill. Of course we shall carefully study in detail what has been said and no doubt there are several points, some important and some less important, which can be dealt with in Committee. However, I am sure that the main lines of our proposals, including the random checks, are right.
Of course they involve some invasion of individual rights, and I would certainly not be anxious to countenance this unless I thought it necessary. However, I must say that for once the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe got things rather out of proportion when he said that the breathalyser test was comparable with being committed to prison under 18b during the war.
The object of this part of the Bill is not to get convictions. It is at once less punitive and more far reaching than that. Its object is to change social habits, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) put it. It is to make people accept the need to separate the habits of drinking and driving and to do so not on the spur of the moment, but as the result of settled and accepted planning of individual and family lives. It is by whether we achieve this result that the Bill must ultimately be judged. We cannot achieve it without some deterrent effect and we cannot achieve the deterrent

effect without some reasonable chance of detection. Propaganda in itself is not sufficient, although I attach great importance to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said about publicity in this matter.
Nevertheless, we can and, I hope, will ultimately achieve the result of separating drinking and driving in a way which we have not hitherto done when the Bill has settled down and been working for a few years, with fewer offences, fewer cases and fewer convictions, but at the same time with the achievement of that change in social habits which is the basis of our desire in the Bill.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I propose to make two points very briefly, having listened with interest to the Home Secretary. First, on the subject of random testing, I accept that there may be a complete defence in this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the damage which this testing will do to the relationship between the police and the public. It is not so much a matter of over-burdening the police as of the relations between the police and the public.
Secondly, the Home Secretary has admitted, as did the Minister of Transport, that the trouble with a test of this kind is that one is unable to give any guidance to a man as to the amount he can drink, for the amount he can drink depends entirely on his weight and various other factors. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when a limit is being fixed which might be surpassed while, at the same time, not causing impairment of a person's ability to drive, we should carefully consider whether there should be far wider variations in punishments which magistrates would have the discretion to give, rather than making it automatically 12 months' disqualification for such offences?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD SAFETY [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committe under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol and with respect to good vehicles, it is expedient to authorsie the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred

by the Minister of Transport under the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

ROAD SAFETY

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol and with respect to goods vehicles, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums required to be so paid by virtue of the provisions of that Act relating to goods vehicles.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MEDICAL CERTIFICATION)

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Medical Certification) Amendment Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 26), dated 14th January 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.
I think that it might be of assistance to the House, if with your approval, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, we are permitted to discuss the following Regulations on the Order Paper:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Medical Certification) Amendment Regulations 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 27), dated 14th January 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th January, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I have no objection, if the House has no objection.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It might be helpful if I attempted to explain in shorthand how these Regulations affect the present position. I will try to do this as quickly as I can. At present, a final doctor's certificate can only be for a period of three days. Under the Regulations we are now discussing it is possible for a certificate to be granted up to seven days. That is the first of the two effects of the Regulations. There are two possible applications of this extension from three to seven days. The first is where an illness is unlikely to last longer than seven days and the second is at the end of a long illness where the patient is likely to recover within the next seven days.
The second effect of the Regulations is that whereas at present doctors have to issue weekly certificates for the first 28 days—that is, they have to issue a certificate once every seven days—they will in future, when the illness is likely to last more than seven days, be able to issue one forward certificate up to 28 days. It is important to make it clear that a final certificate is still required but that only one standard form will be necessary in future.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel that in those few short sentences I have truncated these somewhat complicated

Regulations. I must apologise to the galaxy on the Government Front Bench for keeping them up at this comparatively late hour, but this is the product of our regulations.
It may assist the House in discussing the Regulations if I set the background and allow the House to judge the scale. I understand that at any one time there may be between 800,000 and 1,200,000 people in Britain unable to go to work because of illness. What we are talking about at present rates of benefit—that is, over the whole range—is a cost to the National Insurance Fund of approximately £180 million a year. That is the justification for taking a few minutes to look at this further extension of the Regulations. In any one year, about 40 million medical certificates will be issued. I confess that until I had looked at the matter I had not appreciated the wide range over which certificates can be issued. But of those 40 million the great majority are for sickness benefit.
It must be said that there are very powerful arguments in favour of these Regulations. The first is simplification. For example, the application of the seven-day rule, which is the first of the two changes proposed in these Regulations, means that in the great majority of cases there will be only one certificate instead of two. In the application of the 28-day rule which is the second of the changes made in the Regulations, two certificates will be issued instead of four. I have seen it estimated authoritatively that if the House approves these Regulations the reduction in the number of certificates which have to be written by the medical profession will be as many of 4½ million. That is the scale of what we are talking about—very big money and a very large number of certificates.
The second powerful argument in favour of approving the Regulations is that it is claimed that in future visits both by and to doctors will be dictated solely by medical requirements and not by the calendar requirements of the certificate period. It does not need me to gild the lily by saying that a time of great pressure on doctors this is a very important consideration.
I felt it right at the outset to refer to these very powerful arguments in favour,


which I have no doubt the Parliament Secretary will underline. If I now concentrate on the arguments against, it is partially because of the nature of our procedures and partially because I have no doubt that the arguments in favour will be competently handled by the Parliamentary Secretary himself.
The arguments against are overwhelmingly concentrated on the 28-day rule and not on the seven-day rule. The extension of the rules to the seven-day certificate procedure has met with general approval. It is largely on the 28-day extension that anxieties have been expressed.
The first anxiety was voiced by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, not when it was discussing the Regulations now under review, but when it was discussing the previous change, made last year. It is rather under a year ago that the Committee issued its interesting Report, and its anxieties about the Regulations then under consideration were, first, that in its judgment then it was impracticable to devise worth-while lists of conditions which would not be too conflicting, on the one hand, and too vague and ambiguous, on the other. The Regulations upon which the Committee has now reported largely meet that particular objection, because they are a simplification, but the other two remain.
The other two objections which it then pinpointed were that it was not possible for a diagnosis and a prognosis to be sufficiently firm in the early days of an illness to justify a 28-day certificate. Its second anxiety as previously expressed was that, psychologically, to be the recipient at the very outset of an illness of a 28-day certificate might have a very adverse effect. I repeat that those are not my arguments, but those of the right hon. Lady's Advisory Committee.
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that I mean. The illness which we all call jaundice, but which is now generally known as hepatitis, is a very lowering disease; it makes one want to murder one's wife, or whoever is closest to one. It is a disease where the morale of the patient is very low. Many years ago I myself suffered from it as a boy. If, at the outset of that disease, a doctor were to prescribe a 28-day certificate, it could have a debilitating effect upon the morale of the patient, and that was the

anxiety which was expressed so well in the report of the Advisory Committee.
I am very much obliged for the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary. Is he satisfied that the arguments in the second report of the Minister's Advisory Committee, which largely base themselves on the pressures on doctors, outweigh the arguments in the first report which were largely based on the clinical and psychological effects of a 28-day certificate? If he reflects on paragraph 22 of the Committee's report on the present Regulations, I am sure that he will agree that, to put it mildly, it is giving its approval reluctantly.
The Committee still believe that the clinical and psychological objections remain, and I should like to be sure that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the claims of the pressures on the doctors are such that they outweigh the clinical and psychological objections which were so powerfully argued by his right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee less than a year ago.
So strongly did the Committee feel, that it sought three assurances. First, it sought an assurance that the medical services available to the patient would not be affected by these new Regulations. Secondly, it sought an assurance that in future visits to patients would be dictated solely by medical considerations. Thirdly, it sought an assurance that the only effective reduction in medical visits by doctors as a result of these Regulations would be visits by doctors purely and simply for certification purposes.
Those were the assurances sought by the Committee, and my second question to the Minister is, is he satisfied with the assurances which the Committee received as a result of this Report which is now before us? Is he satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the assurances are as good as they ought to be in view of the Report?
The second objection to these Regulations came from the T.U.C. who, perfectly properly and responsibly, highlighted the position of employees who are members of occupational sick pay schemes. The T.U.C. argued that these men and women would be required to produce weekly certificates, and that a situation could arise where employers might require certificates more frequently


than will be mandatory under the Regulations if they come into force.
The T.U.C. argued that if certificates were required more frequently an employee might find himself in the difficult position either of having a doctor refusing to give a certificate more frequently, or of him making a charge for that certificate, and, not unreasonably, the T.U.C. asked that this real objection should be considered most carefully. The answer given by the right hon. Lady's Committee is contained in paragraph 23 of the Committee's Report, but it is a lukewarm assurance. The Committee says:
On this we have had some reassurance.
That is not a strong reply or reassurance to genuine anxieties.
As I understand the Report, employers, through their corporate body, have undertaken that all their members will be encouraged to fall into line, that they will all be encouraged not to ask for certificates more frequently than will be required under these Regulations, and that they will not ask for separate additional certificates. I must, however, draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the closing words of paragraph 23, where it says:
We would have found it most difficult to approve the draft regulations if we had not been prepared to believe that employers generally would respond sympathetically to the suggestions which have been made to them by the Government.
Are the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend satisfied that the undertakings given by the employers will be honoured, and that the fears of the T.U.C. are groundless?
I must refer to an objection which interests the general public, namely, the extension to 28 days of the period for which a certificate can be granted. It is suggested that this will encourage scrimshanking or evasion. There are respectable precedents for making this accusation. Lord Robens, who has a name to conjure with, and who is respected on both sides of the House, recently made a vigorous attack on absenteeism in the coal mines. He told the country that last year it cost, in production, the equivalent of £64 million, which itself was equivalent to shutting down for three quarters of a year the

whole of the West Midlands Division of the Coal Board, which is its most productive division.
The anxieties expressed in some quarters that there may be an element of evasion if this scheme is brought into effect cannot lightly be thrown aside, in the light of Lord Robens' statement, but hon. Members on both sides of the House must be very careful before making wild assertions of widespread evasion. That is why, on the last three occasions when we have discussed this question—all in the space of a week—both Front Benches have been at pains to make it clear that if there has been evasion or a stretching of the rules it is on a comparatively small scale, and affects a comparatively small number of people. Unless there is much firmer evidence than exists at present I do not regard it as responsible to make theatrical assertions from this Box that our people, generally speaking, are grossly abusing the system.
The first check on the system is the integrity of the doctor. The House must understand the considerable difficulties under which doctors labour in this respect. Let us consider the case of a closely-knit community—a mining community or a community in the deep country. If a doctor there gets a reputation for being very hard in the matter of giving certificates it may be difficult for him to conduct his practice.
There is no secrecy in certificates. A certificate is a public, open document. If a patient arrives to see his doctor on Monday morning, plainly unable to go to work, from a medical point of view, and if it is clear to the doctor that his patient's weekend has not been spent in mental and physical refreshment—as we hon. Members are accustomed to spend our weekends—he cannot say so with blistering frankness on the certificate. I am told by my medical friends that it is not known for diagnoses in hospital to be written down followed by the letters G.O.K., which, I understand, stand for "God only knows".
The medical practitioner is not given that let-out. His is a public certificate. It is only reasonable and honourable for the medical practitioner sometimes to play safe. He may feel that the condition which he is investigating is the early condition of something much more serious. In that connection, we should


not overlook the increasing peril which doctors face now in view of the very welcome spread of the legal aid system.
The second check is the reference to the Minister's regional medical officers. I know that there is the initial stage of the legal officers, but I am concentrating on reference to the medical officers. In 1963, 544,000 were referred to the regional medical officers and that is no light figure. It is tailored to the facilities of the Ministry for conducting these reviews. It is not a significant figure, in the same way as the selections for the 11-plus will reflect the places available at local grammar schools.
When one breaks down those figures for 1963, one finds that, of the numbers referred, just over 50 per cent. were found to be incapable of work, 10 per cent. were capable of work, 20 per cent. had recovered before the examination and 20 per cent. never attended the examination at all.

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will link his remarks with the changes proposed in the Regulations.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I apologise if I have inadvertently strayed, Mr. Speaker. I was about to argue that the change in the 28-day regulation from seven to 28 may cause an extension in the number of references to regional medical officers. But, of course, I see that that may be only lightly touched upon.
I think it only fair, since I have made that case, to say that, in the Report of the Advisory Committee, the reply is given that the reference procedures which may be extended under the 28-day rule are only, in the main, applied where the illness could have been expected to be short, but in fact was of much longer duration and that therefore it is normal for about 40 per cent. of the references to have recovered before the regional medical officer investigates their case.
Therefore, I conclude, with one most important proviso, that the abuse, if there is abuse, is very strictly limited. I think that it is right to say so. The proviso is mentioned in the Advisory Committee's Report. If these Regulations are brought into force, I understand that it is calculated that they can easily be in force by June, 1966. It therefore follows that the

figures from June, 1966, to June, 1967, can be available, according to the Report, by August, 1968. It will, therefore, be possible to review the figures by the end of 1968. The proviso is that there should be, in accordance with the Advisory Committee's recommendations, a review of the figures by the end of 1968. This is the advice tendered to the Minister by her Advisory Committee.
The question I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, finally, is whether he and his right hon. Friend accept the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that the Regulations that we are now discussing should be reviewed in any case not later than the end of 1968. It seems to me that that is a minimum requirement if we are to give this extension both to the medical profession and to the Ministry.
I apologise for having taken a little longer than I intended, but these are complicated matters, and I have put the matter in as fair a perspective as I have been able. I am certain that it is necessary, though tonight we certainly cannot explore it in any sort of detail, to remember that if there be any abuse, it is not a disease in itself but a symptom, and that what is being done under successive Governments by group practices, by secretarial assistance, by special provisions in the review body and the rest for relieving the pressures on doctors will mean that they will be better able to operate the certification procedures which we are now discussing.
I hope that what I have said will help us not only to examine this very important matter in some detail but, in the context of the National Insurance and National Health Service as a whole, to keep it in proper perspective.

Mr. Speaker: I would call attention to the fact that we cannot discuss the whole question of National Insurance and the registration and certification of illnesses, apart from the way in which they are altered in the Instrument which is before the House.

10.33 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): Mr. Speaker, I have taken particular notice of your remarks because the hon.


Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) covered a very wide area which, to my mind, was not specifically related to the Regulations which we are discussing tonight.
Perhaps I can begin, as the hon. Gentleman did, by reminding the House of the purpose of the two sets of amending Regulations. It is to lighten the burden of non-medical work which doctors are expected to carry—that is, to reduce the 40 million certificates a year which they were issuing for National Insurance purposes. I might add that a reduction in the number of certificates is not so important as a reduction in the number of visits which had to be made to and by doctors weekly under the old rules simply for the purpose of issuing certificates at weekly intervals. That is one matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the pressures there are on the doctors.
The hon. Gentleman correctly interpreted the change that the Regulations make, and here I come to the hon. Gentleman's other point. The doctors will, of course, be able to issue the certificates that are necessary when they have to see patients for medical reasons. This has a bearing on the hon. Gentleman's probing about the pressure on doctors, and his question as to whether or not a doctor would now be able to concentrate more upon the medical requirements. It is not an arbitrary interval of a week, as under the old rules. In case it is thought that this certification in advance is something new for doctors, I might remind the House that once an illness had lasted a month, doctors were always able to issue certificates for up to four weeks in advance and, from March 1965, for up to 13 weeks in advance.
Two national committees, the National Insurance Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, have approved the purpose of the Regulations. There are separate Regulations for each side—the sickness benefit and industrial injury benefit sides—but as the test is "incapacity for work "on both sides and as it is no part of the doctor's responsibility to decide whether a claim is for sickness or injury benefit, the rules must be the same. Both advisory committees include among their members representatives

of employers and employed persons, and the N.I.A.C. took oral evidence from the representatives of the employers, the C.B.I., and of employed persons, the T.U.C.
The hon. Gentleman questioned me about the concern of the T.U.C. in regard to the certificates. They were concerned about the possibility of employers requiring employees to submit and pay for weekly private certificates, although the doctor had issued a National Insurance certificate for longer than a week under the new rules. As the hon. Gentleman said, in its Report the N.I.A.C. referred to assurances that it had been given by the employers' representatives to the effect that they would do what they could to encourage employers not to ask for certificates at more frequent intervals than were required for sickness benefit purposes. The Committee also referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had sent letters to employers generally asking them, for occupational sick-pay purposes, to follow the practice already followed by many of accepting the sight of a certificate or a copy of one issued for National Insurance purposes and not to ask for a separate certificate.
It is also true, as the N.I.A.C. stated in its Report, that certain people had misgivings about absenteeism but, as it also said, the Ministry knows little or nothing about absences from work of less than four days. The word "absenteeism" has been bandied about quite a lot recently, both outside and inside the House. It was referred to during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill on Monday by hon. Gentlemen opposite and I also referred to it in my speech replying to the debate.
What do people mean when they use the word "absenteeism"? To some it means the odd day or so's absence from work. I wish that they would tell us what they mean about absenteeism in connection with National Insurance certificates. In fact, the odd day or so's absence from work has little or nothing to do with these certificates. But it has a lot to do with employers and we would be very interested to know the extent of it and what employers are going to do about it. The National Coal Board publishes its figures but,


strangely enough, other employers are rather reluctant to publish theirs.
It is not perhaps realised that we are not normally interested in absences of less than four days and we do not normally hear about them. National Insurance benefits are not normally payable for less than four days' absence and therefore patients do not normally ask for certificates and doctors do not normally issue them. Instead, patients ask for private certificates which it seems they need for their employers' purposes. I have already dealt with that aspect of the private certificate.
Even supposing such days were covered by National Insurance medical certificates they would not normally attract benefit. Still less would they attract the proposed new earnings-related supplement for which there has to be a preliminary waiting period of a fortnight. To argue that the prospect of earnings-related sickness benefit will lead to increased absenteeism—and the hon. Gentleman implied as much—only makes sense if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are thinking in terms of absences of longer than a fortnight which will qualify for the earnings-related supplement.
If the Opposition think that, they must also be thinking that doctors will issue certificates for longer than a fortnight, regardless of the circumstances of the particular case. They must also be ignoring our control procedures, although the hon. Gentleman did not do so. It has been implied—and the hon. Gentleman, although fair in many respects, did imply—that, because the rules for certification are being relaxed, doctors will relax their checks on absenteeism.
Are the Opposition then saying bluntly that they do not trust the doctors? Such questions are bound to be asked by people outside, because the whole trend of the Opposition's case means that, in the last analysis, they do not really trust the doctors. One can go further. Are the Opposition implying that they expect the doctors to act irresponsibly and issue indiscriminately certificates for complete weeks or months without regard to the nature of the illness or the time the patient may be expected to be incapacitated? Alternatively, are they saying that doctors will submit to pressures to issue

certificates for longer periods than their judgment would indicate? Are they saying that doctors will issue certificates for longer than a fortnight just so that patients can get the earnings related supplement?
I should explain that we expect the doctors to issue a certificate saying what a person is suffering from and how long it is likely to make him incapable of work. That is all. But some people seem to think that the doctors should act as policemen. I was interested to read an article in the Economist on 29th January. I will quote an extract. It said:
In any case, doctors are not employed by industrialists to keep absenteeism down. Nor are they concerned with the level of sickness benefit, which must affect workers' willingness to go sick, and which, when related to wages as is now proposed…will encourage more of them to do so. The Ministry of Pensions has its own system for checking unjustified claims for benefit. If employers find a comparatively high rate of absenteeism among their workers, they should ask themselves what is causing it, instead of relying on doctors, and extra, private, certificates, to keep it in check. A doctor is concerned with a patient and his symptoms, and it is hoped that the new rules will allow him more time to investigate these than he has at present.
Even if the hon. Gentleman thinks that claimants will make the most of the new certificates, and even if he is rather sceptical about the control procedures which the Ministry has in operation at present, obviously the Economist does not.
As I have said already in the House, we have a regular system of checks on incapacity for work. The latest figures show that during 1965 we referred to regional medical officers and appropriate health departments some 628,000 sickness benefit claimants and about 190,000 injury benefit claimants for an independent medical opinion on incapacity for work, a total of 818,000 references in the year. Additionally, we made about 476,000 visits to claimants in their own homes in that year to satisfy ourselves that incapacity for work was continuing.
Of all the claimants referred during 1965, about half were considered by regional medical officers to be incapable of work. The hon. Gentleman referred to the work which was being done by the regional medical officers. I am also delighted to see the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) in his place,


because as he was the responsible Minister in the last Government he knows full well the work that is done in these control procedures.
This hardly suggests that the Ministry is easy in applying these control procedures. Indeed, it has been alleged on more than one occasion that we are far too quick off the mark in checking on people's incapacity for work. I heard that criticism long before I became a Member of Parliament. As I said in Monday's debate, we are fully aware of the comparatively small number of people we have identified for our own purposes as malingerers, but for obvious reasons we do not make public how we identify them for special control action. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
People generally may not know about them; but this, too, is understandable. I am talking now about people outside not knowing about malingerers, because malingerers are hardly likely to make public the fact that they are subject to special control action every time they make a claim for benefit; nor will they make public the fact that benefit is often withheld. They will just not disclose these facts.
I could go on about the purposes of the Regulations, but to keep strictly within the confines of order I end by saving that we recommend to the House these Regulations which my right hon. Friend laid before the House in January of this year and we hope that they will be accepted.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Van Straubenzee: I am sure that the House is grateful for most of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has just said. If justification were needed for tabling these Prayers, which I am sure it is not, the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman towards the end of his speech about the control procedure are extremely valuable for everyone to know.
The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech in answer to the speech which he thought I would make but which I did not make. I think that when he reads my speech, he will find that I was not unreasonable in my approach. It was I who used the phrase that the integrity of the doctors is the first check. I am the last person to say—I did not

say and, if I may say so in a friendly way, I resent somewhat the inference that I did say—anything detrimental to the doctors. I am sure that this will be found by the hon. Gentleman, who is a very fairminded person, when he reads my speech.
Nevertheless, in view of the explanations and the helpful attitude of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE DAVID BATCHELOR (DEATH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: May I draw the attention of the House to the tragic case of Private David Batchelor, who lived in Watford, my constituency. David Batchelor was 17 years old and was longing to go into the Army, His parents reluctantly agreed, and his first assignment was to Aden. He had not been there long when he was sitting in a tent on a bed with a non-commissioned officer. That non-commissioned officer had a sub-machine gun in his hand, and it was his duty before coming into the tent to see that the sub-machine gun was not loaded. He negligently did not attend to this, and the sub-machine gun was loaded. While sitting with it in his hands on the bed with Private David Batchelor, he accidentally discharged its contents into Private Batchelor's body. A bullet entered his heart and Private Batchelor died almost immediately. It was not disputed that he died because of the negligence of this N.C.O.
A letter dated 26th October, 1965, from the Ministry of Defence to the unfortunate parents of the boy stated:
You will already know from the commanding officer's letter dated 29th August of the great care that is taken to prevent accidents of his kind, but as a result of this tragedy safety precautions in the handling of weapons are being given even more emphasis in daily training.
What a comfort to the parents of this boy to know that he was killed and that as a result of his death the Army will exercise more care in future! Why have


we the traditional rôle of refusing to shut the stable door until the horse has bolted?
But that was not the end of the story. Private Batchelor's broken-hearted parents asked that the body should be sent home to England for burial. The Army would not pay for the sending back of the body and, to add insult to injury, Private David Batchelor's parents had to pay the sum of £393 to bring the body of their boy home. If Private Batchelor had been on leave, the Army would have paid. If he had wanted to get married, the Army would have paid for his fiancée to fly out to Aden to marry him. This happened recently in the case of a man who married in Singapore; his fiancée was flown out.
It is known—a Question was asked on 26th January—that a private car of an air vice-marshal
was brought home to England from Cyprus by a Royal Air Force Hastings transport aeroplane free of charge".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 207.]
Might I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the space occupied by a car could be occupied by twelve coffins, and not just one coffin.
Of course, the Army is very lucky in certain respects. Today, if Smith is injured or killed by the negligence of Jones when they both work in the same company and it is during the course of their employment that Smith is killed, the parents can sue the employer of Smith and Jones and recover damages because Jones did it in the course of his employment. In 1947, that was applied to the Crown, and one can now sue the Crown if one is run over by a jeep driven by an Army officer, but the Act specifically exempts—and I am referring now to Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947—a member of the Armed Forces while on duty as such. The curious result therefore obtains that if I am run over by an Army jeep driven by a colonel, I can claim damages from the Crown, but if I happen to be a soldier on duty when that Army jeep runs me down, I have no redress at all.
The Armed Forces are therefore very lucky in that they can get out of this liability in tort for damages for the death of someone who is serving. Not only, however, do they get out of that liability, but they are now wriggling out of what

is a moral responsibility, whereas they should be on their knees to these broken-hearted parents to try to ease and comfort them and to heal their wounds, instead of digging the knife even more deeply into those afflicted, as they are doing.
My correspondence with my hon. Friend, who was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army and who is now Minister of Defence for the Army, resulted in a letter to me written on 13th December in which he says
Our policy about this has been modified since the war, but it stems from the tradition that soldiers dying on service in foreign countries are buried there by their comrades. In 1963 we changed the rule to allow repatriation from Germany, which is regarded by the Army as a home station, but extension of this to countries further away would present formidable problems connected with climatic conditions, local health regulations and transport difficulties.
Climatic condition, local health regulations and transport difficulties did not prevent this body from being put in a coffin and brought home to England, but the Army would not pay.
I realise that my hon. Friend, who is now Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army and who is waiting to reply, will quote me masses of regulations which provide that there will be no responsibility for bringing home a body of a soldier dying overseas. But those regulations could be altered. It was not always that Smith could claim damages against Jones for negligence if they were both in the same employment. Until fairly recently he could not do so, because of the doctrine of common employment. Smith or Smith's parents could not claim damages against the company for Jones's negligence. The doctrine of common employment was called by one judge the Devil's foster child and at a fairly recent date it was altered to permit Smith or Smith's parents to bring an action against the company. Similarly, regulations of the Armed Forces which bear unjustly on those affected, could also be changed.
I am asking that those regulations, if they exist, should be changed. It is about time that the Army faced up to what is a moral responsibility. I am not asking that they should be changed for every soldier dying on active service. I believe that as it happens the Americans bring home the body of every soldier who dies on active service if they can and that


they do not charge the parents, but we do not have the money which the Americans have to do so. I appreciate, too, that if a soldier goes on a mission to Aden, say, and contracts cholera or dies as the result of a sniper's bullet, those are risks which unfortunately a soldier has to take all too often.
What I am asking is that where a death occurs as a result of the negligence of the Ministry of Defence—because here it was clearly as a result of negligence of someone who is employed by the Ministry of Defence, which is therefore morally responsible for this man's death—then these regulations should be altered so that the afflicted parents of the dead soldier may have his body brought back without being charged for it. These cases do not occur every day. They are very few and far between. The Ministry could afford to bring these bodies back. Let us put a little humanity and compassion into our regulations and rules if we are not to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves in the future.

11.2 p.m.

The Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Before I go into the details of this case and answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), I would ask him to convey to the parents of Private Batchelor my deep sympathy with them in this very tragic bereavement. To the bitterness of losing a young son is added the knowledge that his death was due to an accident and to negligence rather than to the expected hazards which surround our soldiers on operational duty in the Arabian peninsula.
My hon. Friend pointed out that Private Batchelor was still under the age of 18 when he was killed. I recognise that this adds to the tragedy of his death. The rule is that soldiers may be sent to Germany from the age of 17¼ and to other countries overseas from 17½. This age of 17½ was adopted in March, 1963. It is subject to the safeguard that initial training has to be completed before posting, and all military training has to be completed before soldiers can be employed on operations. But the change of age is because of the growing responsibility and independence of young people which one has noted in recent years.
One point which was not mentioned tonight has arisen in my investigation and I feel that I ought to mention it. In some of the earlier correspondence on this matter it seemed that the parents felt strongly that a letter which they had written to the Secretary of State was not answered at that time. In fact it was answered, and I should like to correct the misapprehension. Any letter which reaches the Department and is addressed to the political head of the Department is handed to that part of the Department where there are professionals with knowledge of the subject. They investigate it. An answer was made. I am most anxious that the parents should not think that any slight was involved.
I turn to the facts of the matter. Private Batchelor was a Regular soldier serving in Aden with the Royal Sussex Regiment. At the time of the accident he was with a detachment in a place called Mukieras in the Eastern Aden Protectorate. On the afternoon of 12th August last year, preparations were being made for a patrol to be sent out, and one of the non-commissioned officers detailed for this duty was a friend of Private Batchelor's and shared a tent with him and some other soldiers.
This lance-corporal was instructed to carry a sub-machine gun on the patrol instead of his own rifle, and he arranged to take over the weapon from another n.c.o. in the company. The submachine gun was given to him fully loaded and with a magazine clipped on to it. He took the gun back to his tent to examine it in preparation for the patrol, and while he overhauled it he sat talking to Private Batchelor who was the only other occupant of the tent at that time. He found some stiffness in the magazine and dismantled part of the gun to repair it. While he was reassembling the working parts of the machine gun, still talking to Private Batchelor, he let the working parts slide forward, and three rounds were fired. Private Batchelor, who was sitting on a bed facing him, was struck by two of the bullets, one of which struck his heart, and he died shortly afterwards, in spite of very prompt medical attention.
All hon. Members who have served in the Armed Forces will realise that not only was was there negligence in the handling of the machine-gun but it should


never have been handed over fully loaded from one soldier to another. In this case it had been quite properly loaded for an earlier spell of duty, but the magazine and ammunition should have been removed by the n.c.o. who had been using it before he transferred the weapon from his own charge. We have found that both the junior n.c.o.s concerned were thoroughly familiar with this type of gun and had been fully trained in, and fully understood, the normal and reasonable precautions to be taken in handling firearms. Naturally there has been a very careful inquiry into the training given to members of this detachment in weapon handling. I have also seen the battalion orders published in this respect by the commanding officer.
These orders were most meticulous, even stating the part of the camp where weapons were to be loaded when armed parties were about to leave the camp. Further, inquiries showed that there were repeated periods of training in handling, even to the extent of 10 minutes being devoted to this by every patrol before it set out. This is what one should expect in an infantry battalion in operational conditions. I am satisfied there was no lack of formal training, instruction or supervision. Yet in spite of all this there was this tragic accident.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. I do not wish to develop this, but I will say that the Crown Proceedings Act was passed to deal with the problem of the Armed Forces. It would be impossible for the Armed Forces to proceed as if they were employed under the same conditions as persons employed with a private company. No one under this Act who is on duty as a member of the Forces is subject to liability in tort for the death of another person also on duty, nor is the Crown liable.
I now turn to my hon. Friend's main point—why Private Batchelor's body was not brought home at public expense for burial in this country. When the telegram with the news of the soldier's death reached the family, his brother telephoned the casualty department of the Ministry to ask about the funeral arrangements, and the possibility of having the body brought home. The rules, about which I will talk in a moment, were carefully

explained to him and Mr. Batchelor was advised to seek an estimate of cost from an undertaker before making a decision. The family decided to go ahead with the repatriation and when this decision was given to my Department, we did what we could to help, principally through the administrative arrangements, which were looked after by the Army authorities in Aden. The men of the Battalion in Aden decided to help towards the cost and a donation of £200 was raised.
My hon. Friend said that there should be no need for donations or private arrangements since, in his contention, it should be the responsibility of the Services to bring back to this country the bodies of its members who have died while serving abroad.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: No, not to members of the Forces who die while on service abroad, but to those who die due to the negligence of serving members of the Forces, and therefore due to the negligence of the Army and the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Rees: I thought that I had covered this point when I dealt with the Crown Proceedings Act. My hon. Friend knows that the whole subject is under review, as has been said in reply to recent Questions, and my right hon. Friend expects to make a statement about this quite shortly. That remark means no more than it says. I do not wish to leave the impression that the policy will be changed, but we are going into the whole matter very thoroughly to see whether new rules would be feasible and justifiable. Because of the review there is not a great deal that I can say now.
My hon. Friend will recall that there was an Adjournment debate on 15th November, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy explained the kind of considerations which were being covered in our examination. Briefly, the situation on the general case of burials abroad is that in all the long history of campaigns abroad, soldiers who died were buried there by their comrades. After a time, cemeteries were established, and they are looked after nowadays by the War Graves Commission.
In place of the tradition of burial with military honours in a grave to be


tended by the Commission as a public trust, we are asked—and I recognise the growing interest in the House—to institute, as a regular and normal practice, a system of repatriation of Service dead if families so desire.
There was a move in that direction in 1963, when the Government of the day agreed that repatriation should be allowed from North-West Europe. Practical difficulties were not serious, and the change was logical, in that Germany had been regarded by the Army as a home station for purposes of home and overseas postings for some time. But, in announcing the change to the House, the Government said that there would be acute practical difficulties if an attempt were made to apply those measures world wide. That was a very fair warning, as our study has already confirmed.
I need not describe again what is needed to overcome health and quarantine regulations, to provide an embalming service in some cases and to contrive some reliable arrangements for transport. I would point out that the case is sub judice, but there is all the difference in the world between n.c.o.s and men in all these Services being allowed to bring their cars and their families home. After all, the car can wait at the airport for a long time, for weeks if necessary, whereas a dead body cannot. One would need to have a far more reliable transport service in that case.
This was all dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend on 15th November. But I would remind the House that in such a difficult and emotional subject, where contact has to be made with families suffering shock and grief, any new procedures would have to be made straightforward and practical. It is not easy when our forces are so scattered.
There is the difficulty that any new rule has to be seen to be fair. It would be unfortunate if, in the case of one death, the body could be brought home and then, in another case involving almost the same sort of accident or whatever it might be, the body could not be brought home. It is such an emotional subject that we must get the rule absolutely right.
The question of a colonial police officer was raised, who would not have been a servant of Her Majesty's Government. There was a question of a fiancée. In many cases, a fiancée can go out, and in any case a married woman would be able to go out in certain circumstances.
In spite of our diminishing overseas commitments there are still large numbers of Servicemen and their families abroad, some in large garrisons, but many in small numbers and in remote places. The problem is multiplied greatly if one considers the other public servants on civilian duty overseas for the Government. All those cases have to be taken into consideration, which is why our survey is not complete and why I am at pains to emphasise that no promise can be made about changes. My right hon. Friend will make his conclusions known as soon as possible.
To return to the particular case raised by my hon. Friend, I take the point that he is asking for just this classification to be brought home because of the unfortunate circumstances of the death. But I would point out that many of the problems which I have already mentioned arise in these circumstances as well and, again, there cannot be one policy for one type of accident and a different one for another.
I emphasise again the sympathy felt for the parents in these very tragic circumstances. The Army Department is not insensitive to the real feelings of relatives in these and other similar cases. It is very difficult sometimes. There are rules which have to be carried out, and it might be felt that this is an insensitive bureaucracy, but that is not the case. The rules are there, and we must have regard to them. A great deal of time and thought is given to every individual case, and I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal of time and thought is being given to the existing regulations which the Department has to administer. That is what we are looking at now, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.